2:1 allocation [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2021-06-22 15:05 (335 d 06:56 ago) – Posting: # 22427
Views: 830

Hi Sundar,

welcome back to the forum!

» Will there be any issue in adopting 2:1 (Test:Reference) randomization method in biosimilarity (BE) studies?

You will loose some power compared to equally sized treatment arms. For an [image]-script see there. It gives for an assumed CV 40% and T/R-ratio 0.95 targeted at 80% power:

n = 130 (1:1 allocation)
  nT = nR = 65
  power = 0.8035
n = 132 (naïve 2:1 allocation)
  nT = 88, nR = 44
  power = 0.7618
n = 147 (2:1 allocation)
  nT = 98, nR = 49
  power = 0.8060

If we desire a 2:1 allocation and want to preserve power, we need 13% more subjects than for the 1:1 allocation.

» Note: The 2:1 randomization is mainly due to transition arm.

What do you mean by that?

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖 [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
22,092 posts in 4,630 threads, 1,567 registered users;
online 7 (0 registered, 7 guests [including 6 identified bots]).
Forum time: Monday 22:01 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

There is no adequate defense, except stupidity,
against the impact of a new idea.    Percy Williams Bridgman

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