Problems with low variability [General Statistics]
❝ I would like to say Thank you sir for your valuable information. This may be helpful to my question.
Welcome. Would you mind answering my previous questions:
❝ ❝ I guess 100% was not contained in the 90% CI, right?
❝ ❝ For which power did you plan the study?
Sometimes statistically significant differences are common, namely if the CV is low (say, <10%) and you plan for 80% power. Then you may end up with a sample size far below the regulatory minimum of twelve. Add more subjects to compensate for potential dropouts and…
In my protocols I state that extremely high power is expected and the CI might well contain not 100%.
script:
library(PowerTOST)
balance <- function(x, seqs) { # gives complete sequences
x <- ceiling(x) + ceiling(x) %% seqs
return(x)
}
CV <- 0.10 # assumed (here 10%)
theta0 <- 0.925 # assumed T/R-ratio
target <- 0.80 # target (desired) power (here at least 80%)
do.rate <- 0.10 # anticipated dropout rate (here 10%)
design <- "2x2x2" # can be any one given by known.designs()
seqs <- as.integer(substr(design, 3, 3)) # sequences
n <- sampleN.TOST(CV = CV, theta0 = theta0, targetpower = target,
design = design, details = FALSE,
print = FALSE)[["Sample size"]]
if (n < 12) n <- 12 # force to minimum acc. to GLs
dosed <- balance(n / (1 - do.rate), seqs) # adjust for dropout-rate & balance
eligible <- dosed:n; dropouts <- rev(eligible - n)
res <- data.frame(dosed = dosed, dropouts = dropouts, eligible = eligible,
power = NA, CL.lo = NA, CL.hi = NA,
p.left = NA, p.right = NA)
for (j in seq_along(eligible)) {
res$power[j] <- suppressMessages(
signif(power.TOST(CV = CV, theta0 = theta0,
design = design, n = eligible[j]), 4))
res[j, 5:6] <- round(100*CI.BE(pe = theta0, CV = CV,
design = design, n = eligible[j]), 2)
res[j, 7:8] <- suppressMessages(
signif(pvalues.TOST(pe = theta0, CV = CV,
design = design, n = eligible[j]), 4))
}
print(res, row.names = FALSE)
dosed dropouts eligible power CL.lo CL.hi p.left p.right
14 0 14 0.9760 86.49 98.93 0.001154 1.913e-06
14 1 13 0.9652 86.22 99.23 0.001752 4.846e-06
14 2 12 0.9521 85.92 99.59 0.002569 1.166e-05
Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна!
Helmut Schütz
The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes
Complete thread:
- Treatment effect justification Sivakrishna 2020-10-07 08:15 [General Statistics]
- Treatment effect justification ElMaestro 2020-10-07 10:19
- statistically significant ≠ clinically relevant Helmut 2020-10-07 11:07
- statistically significant ≠ clinically relevant Sivakrishna 2020-10-09 10:24
- Problems with low variabilityHelmut 2020-10-09 15:04
- statistically significant ≠ clinically relevant Sivakrishna 2020-10-09 10:24