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 01:22 (1319 d 21:05 ago) – Posting: # 16908
Views: 5,154

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!

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖
Helmut Schütz
[image]

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

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
20,996 posts in 4,377 threads, 1,460 registered users;
online 18 (0 registered, 18 guests [including 14 identified bots]).
Forum time: Monday 23:27 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

[Those] who have an excessive faith in their theories or in their
ideas are not only poorly disposed to make discoveries, but they
also make very poor observations.    Claude Bernard

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