Single site? [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2021-01-19 12:32 (1182 d 01:02 ago) – Posting: # 22182
Views: 1,818

Salam alghazam,

❝ Previous posts and responses on significance of group effect were focusing on the Group*Treatment factor.


Which is crap. See this presentation and this article.

❝ What is the situation when group term is associated with a p-value of 0.02 …


That’s at least unusual if the the study was performed in multiple groups at one site.
If this was a multi-center study (group = site), it happens more often.

❝ … and the treatment*group is associated with a p-value of more than 0.35.


Fine, if the study was performed at one site. Acc. to the FDA it will allow you to drop this effect and proceed with ‘Model II’. However, this procedure leads to an inflate Type I Error because you have a pre-test (slides 20–21 of the presentation). Simply use ‘Model II’ with the following effects directly:

PS: I will have a meeting with the FDA (dealing with a multi-site study) in the near future. Will report back how they reacted. ;-)

Edit: In April the FDA accepted my arguments and was fine with ‘Model II’ (without the stupid pre-test in ‘Model I’).

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,983 posts in 4,822 threads, 1,648 registered users;
36 visitors (0 registered, 36 guests [including 6 identified bots]).
Forum time: 14:35 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Complex, statistically improbable things are by their nature
more difficult to explain than
simple, statistically probable things.    Richard Dawkins

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