libaiyi ★ China, 20180727 07:34 (1887 d 09:16 ago) (edited by libaiyi on 20180727 07:47) Posting: # 19107 Views: 6,059 

Hi, I have a naive question about the results of sample size based on SampleN.TOST, sampleN.NTIDFDA, sampleN.HVNTID etc. For example, sampleN.RSABE(CV=0.3) I want to know if the target power is 0.8, the sample size is 45 for each group or for whole study. The other question, when we apply power.TOST, the sample size we need to fill in should be number in each group or whole study. Third question, I am confused about the relationship between power and period. Are the power calculation method applied in 2*2, 3*3 and 2*4 designs the same? For example, if I have the result like this of the study design as TSR, could I use the same method to calculate power separately for TR and SR? Should I get two power as the result? And, what about parallel design? Thanks in advance! 
Helmut ★★★ Vienna, Austria, 20180727 13:24 (1887 d 03:25 ago) @ libaiyi Posting: # 19108 Views: 5,487 

Hi libaiyi, answering parts (traveling)… ❝ I have a naive question about the results of sample size based on sampleN.TOST, sampleN.NTIDFDA, sampleN.HVNTID etc. ❝ For example, ❝ ❝ ❝ ❝ ❝ ❝ ❝ I want to know if the target power is 0.8, the sample size is 45 for each group or for whole study. Type help(sampleN.TOST) , etc.It is always the (total) number of subjects in the study. ❝ when we apply power.TOST, the sample size we need to fill in should be number in each group or whole study. As above. — Diftor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! _{} Helmut Schütz The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮 Science Quotes 
libaiyi ★ China, 20180727 13:49 (1887 d 03:01 ago) @ Helmut Posting: # 19110 Views: 5,465 

Hi, Helmut Thanks for answer my question while you are traveling. Enjoy yourself! 
ElMaestro ★★★ Denmark, 20180727 21:57 (1886 d 18:53 ago) (edited by Ohlbe on 20180728 11:07) @ libaiyi Posting: # 19111 Views: 5,500 

❝ Hi Libaiyi, ❝ ❝ ❝ I am confused about the relationship between power and period. Are the power calculation method applied in 2*2, 3*3 and 2*4 designs the same? For example, if I have the result like this of the study design as TSR, could I use the same method to calculate power separately for TR and SR? Should I get two power as the result? And, what about parallel design? ❝ ❝ ❝ ❝ That table looks strange. You seem to have a pair for which the CI is not estimable?? And what about alpha 0.1? Would you be after a twosided CI with 80% coverage (yes I am aware of the ridiculous alpha in the usual SAS code for BE, but is this table derived from one such)? I have no idea what the intention is, it just looks strange to me, and I am sure that if I got such a table in one of my studies then I would not be answering the question I was really asking. Edit: screwed up post deleted [Ohlbe] — Pass or fail! ElMaestro 
d_labes ★★★ Berlin, Germany, 20180728 14:43 (1886 d 02:07 ago) @ ElMaestro Posting: # 19113 Views: 5,391 

Dear ElMaestro, dear Libaiyi, ❝ That table looks strange... ❝ And what about alpha 0.1? — Regards, Detlew 
libaiyi ★ China, 20180731 06:13 (1883 d 10:37 ago) @ ElMaestro Posting: # 19118 Views: 5,432 

Hi, ElMaestro Sorry for the SAS result last time, here is the modified result. The design here is a threeperiod sixsequence William design. I just wondering when the study design is replicated, dose the power calculation method the same as what used in simple 2 by 2 cross over design? Thank you so much! 
ElMaestro ★★★ Denmark, 20180731 13:07 (1883 d 03:43 ago) @ libaiyi Posting: # 19119 Views: 5,315 

Hi libaiyi, ❝ The design here is a threeperiod sixsequence William design. I just wondering when the study design is replicated, dose the power calculation method the same as what used in simple 2 by 2 cross over design? Thank you so much! I am still somewhat baffled. You have different SE's for the three comparisons, possibly suggesting that you are employing an EMAstyle BE evaluation? Anyways, if you are going for a 222BE design, then you can look at your MSE from the ANOVAs (plural, right?), convert them to CVs via CV=sqrt(exp(MSE)1) and you have a decent variability estimate to plug in for any crossover design with or without scaling. Your best point estimate is exp(.2088)~0.81 with upper limit ~0.88, for the TS pair. The others appear worse. I'd personally think twice, but I am widely known as a backward cowardly chicken. Note, the opinion above implies logarithms and standard BE thinking. Edit: Congratulations to your post № 1,500! [Helmut] — Pass or fail! ElMaestro 