Now what? w & w* examples [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by Ben – 2018-06-12 19:14 (1324 d 02:16 ago) – Posting: # 18892
Views: 13,389

Hi Helmut,

» Not necessarily good but a “guesstimate”.
Got it. Well... whatever a guesstimate is ;-)

» » … but in case we observe some unforeseen value we have the possibility to add some extra subjects.
» » However, in such a case we could just go with a fixed design and adapt the Power.
» I’m not sure what you mean here. In a fixed sample design I would rather work with the upper CL of the CV or – if not available – assume a reasonably higher CV than my original guess rather than fiddling around with power.
I try to explain. In case the argument is that a TSD approach should be performed not because of an uncertain CV per se (e.g. quite a big range observed so far) but because it is desired to safeguard against an unfavorable outcome of the CV (i.e. an extreme realization / random deviate of the CV), then: stop right there. To protect against such an outcome is exactly the definition of Power (type II error) and I would question whether a TSD is really the right tool - maybe a fixed design already suffices (with a proper Power).

» » In a TSD setting we typically have no good understanding about the CV... Do I miss something here?
» (1) Yep and (2) no.

» » Based on what assumptions would we select n1 (= fixed design sample size)? We typically have some range of possible values and we don't know where we will be.
» I was just quoting a regulatory statistician (don’t want to out him). Others didn’t contradict him. So likely he wasn’t alone with his point of view.

» Very interesting. I expected that the sample size penalty (n2) will be higher if we use a low n1.
Me too.

» If we base n1 on the lower end and the CV is close to the guesstimate that’s the winner. One the other hand there is a ~56% chance of proceeding to the second stage which is not desirable – and contradicts the concept of a “safety net”. ;-) A compromise would be 75% of the fixed sample design.
» The pessimistic approach would be crazy.
I agree to all of it. :-D

Best regards,

Complete thread:

 Admin contact
21,854 posts in 4,573 threads, 1,554 registered users;
online 14 (0 registered, 14 guests [including 11 identified bots]).
Forum time: Wednesday 20:31 CET (Europe/Vienna)

The real purpose of the scientific method is to make sure
nature hasn’t misled you into thinking you know something
you actually don’t know.    Robert M. Pirsig

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