Sample size estimation for parallel design with more than 2 treatments [Power / Sample Size]

posted by BEQool  – Slovenia, 2023-05-24 23:05 (188 d 08:48 ago) – Posting: # 23567
Views: 1,237

Hello all!

I have a question regarding sample size estimation for parallel designs with more than 2 treatment arms (with more than 2 groups). Package PowerTOST in R covers sample size estimation for parallel design for just 2 parallel groups (known.designs()) and not for more.
Lets say we are conducting a (pilot) parallel study with 3 test formulations and 1 reference. How do we estimate sample size in this case?

I would say that we just double the necessary sample size estimated (in R with sampleN.TOST) for 2 parallel groups (to get 4 independent groups for 3 test formulations and 1 reference). For example for CV=0.2 (parallel design and theta0=0.95) for 2 parallel groups we get sample size of 36 subjects (total sample size for 2 groups), so if we double it we get 72 subjects (for 4 groups?). Is this assumption and sample size estimation a correct one?

On the other hand I have read this article regarding multiple treatments comparison in parallel design and I dont exactly understand why should we just control Type I Error and change alpha when estimating sample size with multiple treatments? So in our case (when using Bon­ferroni adjustment) we would get the total sample size (for 4 groups) of 50 subjects (parallel design, CV=0.2, theta0=0.95, alpha=0.0167)? Is this correct? What is more, 50 is not even dividable by 4.:confused: I am confused and I probably didnt get this explanation in the article right. Nevertheless I wouldnt mind this being the right way as the needed sample size is smaller :-D

Regarding alpha adjustment in the first case (for doubling sample size from 36 to 72) I would say that it is not necessary as it is a pilot study. On the other hand, if this was a pivotal study and we would want to show equivalence for just 1 test formulation (among 3) then we would have to adjust alpha (to 0.0167) and then I would say we would double the estimated sample size for 2 groups the same way as described above (so 50x2=100 subjects)?

So which sample size estimation is a correct one?


Complete thread:

UA Flag
 Admin contact
22,811 posts in 4,783 threads, 1,641 registered users;
20 visitors (0 registered, 20 guests [including 6 identified bots]).
Forum time: 06:54 CET (Europe/Vienna)

Every man gets a narrower and narrower field of knowledge
in which he must be an expert in order to compete with other people.
The specialist knows more and more about less and less
and finally knows everything about nothing.    Konrad Lorenz

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