Carved in stone? [Study As­sess­ment]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2013-08-02 05:22 (4301 d 19:28 ago) – Posting: # 11157
Views: 26,061

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
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,670 registered users;
81 visitors (0 registered, 81 guests [including 44 identified bots]).
Forum time: 00:50 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

If you shut your door to all errors
truth will be shut out.    Rabindranath Tagore

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