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

posted by ElMaestro  – Belgium?, 2016-12-30 12:12  – Posting: # 16910
Views: 4,081

Hi Helmut,

I am sure you are right but I can't follow you, I mean can't readily understand what question you tried to answer.
So let me ask the forbidden question: "Can you reformulate?"

» 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.

This is one thing I did not get. Does that logic also work when we simulate true GMR 0.8 or 1.25 for type I error? I find it hard to convince myself.

Somehow I guess regulators just wanted to say that inclusion of a single subject in stage 2 would not be ok. They are right and that is not rocket science.

Le tits now.

Best regards,
ElMaestro

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
20,343 posts in 4,272 threads, 1,401 registered users;
online 5 (1 registered, 4 guests [including 2 identified bots]).
Forum time (Europe/Vienna): 03:22 CET

That which is static and repetitive is boring.
That which is dynamic and random is confusing.
In between lies art.    John Locke

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