2:1 allocation [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2021-06-22 17:05 (980 d 01:01 ago) – Posting: # 22427
Views: 1,497

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 🖖🏼 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
22,912 posts in 4,806 threads, 1,636 registered users;
31 visitors (0 registered, 31 guests [including 12 identified bots]).
Forum time: 17:07 CET (Europe/Vienna)

It is the peculiar and perpetual error of the human understanding
to be more moved and excited by affirmatives than negatives.    Francis Bacon

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