A posteriori power - No.666 [Power / Sample Size]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2011-03-08 15:27 (5592 d 19:08 ago) – Posting: # 6724
Views: 8,402

Dear Marcel!

❝ During a pilot study, we obtained intra-subject CV about half of what is now published, so this authority basically is saying that we underpowered the study because the CV we obtained is not possible.


Not possible What were the CVs actually?

❝ Having read your presentation, I can see why pilot info isn’t all that great for sample size estimation.


I wouldn’t say that. Only in a pilot study you can control everything (clinical setting, blood sampling time points, bioanalytical method,…). If I have the chance to choose I would always opt for a pilot study. But the size shouldn’t be too small and the CVintra not taken literally (allowing for a safety margin). In the future you might consider a Two-Stage design...

❝ Day 210 is tomorrow, so we'll likely get referred to CMD.


Good luck!

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
23,656 posts in 4,994 threads, 1,570 registered users;
276 visitors (0 registered, 276 guests [including 16 identified bots]).
Forum time: 11:36 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

It requires a very unusual mind
to undertake the analysis of the obvious.    Alfred North Whitehead

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