Proposed changes [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by Mauricio Sampaio  – Brazil, 2020-02-17 14:50 (1517 d 07:49 ago) – Posting: # 21177
Views: 5,847

❝ Consequences for the Consulta Pública N° 760.


Instead of: "Type I error must be preserved and adjusted, and to demonstrate bioequivalence the level of confidence is 94.12%;"

I will only propose that: It must be demonstrated that the type I error of the study is controlled.

Instead of: "This second group must have at least 50% of the previous group"

I will propose that: The number of participants in the second stage must be calculated based on the data extracted from the first stage. The calculation must be justified considering possible losses and / or dropouts observed in the first stage.

In this way, the dialogue is open and not restricted. = "on top of the wall"

[image]


Edit: Subject line changed; see also this post #2. [Helmut]

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,982 posts in 4,822 threads, 1,647 registered users;
41 visitors (0 registered, 41 guests [including 12 identified bots]).
Forum time: 23:40 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

To call the statistician after the experiment is done
may be no more than asking him to perform a postmortem examination:
he may be able to say what the experiment died of.    R.A. Fisher

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