Hypotheses in non-inferiority trials [Power / Sample Size]

posted by The Outlaw Torn – Europe, 2015-06-17 13:35 (3525 d 06:56 ago) – Posting: # 14963
Views: 9,644

I can't seem to be able to respond to Mittyri (the system logs me out when I press the respond button), so I'll respond to Mittyri here via responding to myself.

Thank you, Mittyri. I've printed it out and browsed it. Will grab another coffee and re-read it with my full attention.

In my research, I keep running into statements like this: Type II error has heightened importance in non-inferiority trials and must be managed. If sample size is inadequate, then a non-inferiority trial may lead to a false claim of a drug being non-inferior to a comparator when in fact it is worse.

These types of statements seems to undermine the argument on post hoc power—they seem to claim that post hoc power is meaningful. Am I misinterpreting these kind of statements? Are they valid?

Thank you,
Outlaw Torn


Edit: Strange – I moved your post in the database. [Helmut]

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,376 posts in 4,912 threads, 1,662 registered users;
239 visitors (0 registered, 239 guests [including 11 identified bots]).
Forum time: 19:31 CET (Europe/Vienna)

There are sadistic scientists who hurry to hunt down errors
instead of establishing the truth.    Marie Curie

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