Oops! [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2011-02-07 18:06 (5249 d 02:54 ago) – Posting: # 6571
Views: 26,762

Hi HS,

❝ Sure. I’m a little bit confused right now, because it seems that I misunderstood the decision procedure. Until you came up with your nice question I thought that the power calculation is done on the actual PE of stage 1 (1.08, not 0.95) and only the sample size calculation is done with 0.95 (no adaption for effect size). From the examples the former is not true – both are done with 0.95. Now I’m stuck. Potvin’s simulations were done with 0.95; is it that simple to use e.g. 0.90 instead?


I am no expert here at all.
My impression was that ordinarily a semi-blinded review of the data is done where the apparent variation is calculated and used given an assumption of the PE. I always thought about it like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. You can't know both the PE and the CV at the interim stage.
If the PE (even though not calculated) actually deviates a lot from the assumption, then the apparent CV becomes large.

Pass or fail!
ElMaestro

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,673 registered users;
24 visitors (0 registered, 24 guests [including 15 identified bots]).
Forum time: 22:01 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Medical researches can be divided into two sorts:
those who think that meta is better and those
who believe that pooling is fooling.    Stephen Senn

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