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

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2016-12-30 12:12 (1481 d 18:56 ago) – Posting: # 16910
Views: 4,561

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.

Pass or fail!

Complete thread:

 Admin contact
21,306 posts in 4,443 threads, 1,489 registered users;
online 5 (0 registered, 5 guests [including 4 identified bots]).
Forum time: Wednesday 07:08 CET (Europe/Vienna)

Power: That which is wielded by the priesthood of
clinical trials, the statisticians, and a stick which they use
to beta their colleagues.    Stephen Senn

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