Impact of minimum stage 2 sample size on the Type I Error [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2016-12-30 00:22  – Posting: # 16908
Views: 4,628

Dear all,

on a recent occasion… We know that the minimum n2 = 2 as required in the Q&A document is meaningless. Either a study stops in the first stage or it continues with at least two subjects anyway.

[image]However, do not go further unless you know what you are doing. If you require a minimum stage 2 sample size all studies where a smaller sample size would already be sufficient to demonstrate BE with the target power are now forced to this size. Higher sample size ⇒ more degrees of freedom ⇒ narrower CI ⇒ higher probability to pass BE.
In other words, the TIE will also increase and one would have to use a lower adjusted α.

To the right an example what would happen if one modifies Potvin’s Methods B and C at the location (n1 12, CV 20%) of the maximum TIE and naïvely applies the ‘natural constant’ α 0.0294.

Not a very good idea. Own simulations are mandatory in order to find a suitable α!

Helmut Schütz

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

Complete thread:

 Admin contact
20,138 posts in 4,246 threads, 1,387 registered users;
online 23 (0 registered, 23 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time (Europe/Vienna): 14:44 UTC

The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is
that the stupid are cocksure
while the intelligent are full of doubt.    Bertrand Russell

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