Maybe – but why? [RSABE / ABEL]

posted by Ben – 2012-10-28 14:57 (4625 d 22:41 ago) – Posting: # 9476
Views: 8,780

Dear Helmut,

I see, thanks. But allow me one more question. From your given example, let's say we plan with the primary/reasonable assumption CV=20% and start with n1=24. The fixed design would require a sample size of 20 (sampleN.TOST(CV=0.2, alpha=0.05, targetpower=0.8)), correct? What do you mean by "total sample sizes 10-20% higher"? In case the CV turns out to be different and we have to go to stage two or compared to the case where we stop after stage 1? In the former, doesn't it depend on the different CV? E.g. CV=30% as you said, then we would require sampleN.TOST(alpha=0.0294, CV=0.3)-24 = 24 additional subjects and hence it's 100% higher (or using the mean total n from Table II: 39.9/24 = 1.6625). In the latter case we would have 20% (24/20 = 1.2) but is it reasonable to talk about "total" here?

Best,
Ben

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,686 registered users;
66 visitors (0 registered, 66 guests [including 11 identified bots]).
Forum time: 14:38 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Complex, statistically improbable things are by their nature
more difficult to explain than
simple, statistically probable things.    Richard Dawkins

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