Does unequal alpha distribution make sense? [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2015-05-29 11:31 (3252 d 05:14 ago) – Posting: # 14882
Views: 18,684

Hi Dr_Dan,

❝ Stage I:  0.001 leading to 99.8% CI

❝ Stage II: 0.0413 leading to 9?.?% CI ???


It is generally a 1-2*alpha confidence interval so in this case the coverage is 91.74%.

❝ For the sample size calculation for the second stage you use the GMR 0.95 or the GMR as calculated from stage I results?


So far no method has been published where the observed GMR can be used and where power is not suffering and/or sample size going through the roof. And equally troubling noone has published the proof that using the observed GMR doesn't work. I know at least three different groups of researchers (or two groups and one individual) have been looking at it. I think it is a matter of journals not wishing to publish negative results. Lack of these publications have already caused a few projects to fail as far as I know.

Pass or fail!
ElMaestro

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,991 posts in 4,827 threads, 1,647 registered users;
60 visitors (1 registered, 59 guests [including 2 identified bots]).
Forum time: 16:45 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

If you don’t like something change it;
if you can’t change it, change the way you think about it.    Mary Engelbreit

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