Reconsidering some aspects of the two-trials paradigm

Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics

Volumn 12, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 107-119

  Maca, J ^a   Gallo, P ^a   Branson, M ^a   Maurer, W ^a  

^a NOVARTIS PHARMA AG   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Power; Project power; Two trials convention; Type I error

Indexed keywords

DRUG;

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CALCULATION; DRUG EFFICACY; ERROR; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

CLINICAL TRIALS; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL;

EID: 0036401369     PISSN: 10543406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1081/BIP-120006450     Document Type: Article

References (7)

1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Guidance for Industry: Providing Clinical Evidence of Effectiveness for Human Drug and Biological Products, 1998.
2. Hung, M.M.J.; O'Neill, R.T.; Bauer, P.; Köhne, K. The behavior of the p-value when the alternative hypothesis is true. Biometrics 1997, 53, 11-22.
3. Fisher, L. One large, well-designed, multicenter study as an alternative to the usual FDA paradigm. Drug Inf. J. 1999, 33, 265-271.
4. Senn, S. Statistical Issues in Drug Development; John Wiley: Chichester, UK, 1997.
5. Lu, H.L.; Huque, M. Understanding on the pooled test for controlled clinical trials. Biom. J. 2001, 43, 909-923.
6. Bauer, P.; Köhne, K. Evaluation of experiments with adaptive interim analyses. Biometrics 1994, 50, 1029-1041.
7. Lehmacher, W.; Wassmer, G. Adaptive sample size calculation in group sequential designs. Biometrics 1999, 55, 1286-1290.