Carved in stone? [Study As­sess­ment]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2013-08-02 05:22 (4713 d 16:12 ago) – Posting: # 11157
Views: 31,069

Hi Sam,

❝ Please suggest some test which we can apply for the exclusion of AUCt parameter for only two subjects.


No idea.

❝ ❝ Can you elaborate? With T/R of 84% and a CV of 26% you would have needed 342 (!) subjects to obtain 80% power (and still 260 for 70% power – which is the lowest any serious IEC should accept, IMHO). Was your target power only 46% – running another “casino-type” study? Bad.


❝ I Really apologize for the mistake, the ratio is 84.71 and CV for the pilot study is 19.11.


Really? If your ratio and CV are just 0.02% (!!) worse, your power would already be <80%. Remember that outcomes of pilot studies are estimates, not set in stone. Planing for 80% power – hoping for exactly matching the pilot and face not a single drop-out in such a large study – is gambling as well.*



Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,571 registered users;
329 visitors (0 registered, 329 guests [including 23 identified bots]).
Forum time: 21:34 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The real struggle is not between the right and the left
but between the party of the thoughtful
and the party of the jerks.    Jimmy Wales

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5