[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

From |
Paul Seed <paul.seed@kcl.ac.uk> |

To |
"statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu" <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |

Subject |
st: Re: STATA/detectable difference |

Date |
Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:51:26 +0100 |

The short answer to Elliot's question is "The same important difference that was used (and justified) in the original power calculation". However, it might be that there was no power calculation, and he is obliged to fill a hole.

Even so, it is the actual results (estimate with CI) that matter, not the post-hoc power calculation.

At the design stage, when seeking funding & ethical approval, it is very important to demonstrate that the planned study has a reasonable chance (typically 80% or 90% power) to detect an important difference if one exits. Assuming there was a power calculation, this should be quoted in the methods section. If not, the oversight should be admitted.

At the publication stage, you should know what you have and have not shown, and that is where the emphasis should be. Give the estimated difference (whether expressed as odds ratio, risk ratio etc.), with a confidence interval. If your important difference is outside the interval, you have shown "no important difference" or possible even "equivalence".

One of the main resasons for power calculations in study protocols is that you are obliged to define your clinically important differences up front, and cannot fix them to suit your final results.

--

Paul T Seed MSc CStat, Lecturer in Medical Statistics,

tel (+44) (0) 20 7188 3642, fax (+44) (0) 20 7620 1227

paul.seed@kcl.ac.uk, paul.t.seed@gmail.com

King's College London, Division of Reproduction and Endocrinology

St Thomas' Hospital, Westminster Bridge Road, London SE1 7EH

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:14:15 -0400

From: Steven Samuels <sjhsamuels@earthlink.net>

Subject: st: Fwd: STATA/ detectable difference

Elliot emailed me privately with the information that a Journal

Reviewer asked for the "minimum detectable" difference. In this case,

Elliot should give a set of plausible values, not just the observed

sample value, for one of his proportions. So, if he observed p0_hat

= 12% and p1_hat = 20%, he might use values p0 = 0.10 0.125 0.15 to

compute minimum detectable risks.

Then he can state. "The minimum relative risks detectable in advance

depended on the true proportion in Group 1. For assumed proportions

of 0.10, 0.125, and 0.15, the corresponding detectable relative risks

were: x, y, and z."

- -Steve

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Elliott Dasenbrook <edasenb1@jhmi.edu>

> I have submitted a manuscript and a reviewer requested that we

> provide "the minimum detectable difference that our study had the

> power to detect";

>

* * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**Follow-Ups**:**st: R: Re: STATA/detectable difference***From:*"Carlo Lazzaro" <carlo.lazzaro@tin.it>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: ZANDREWS** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: Use of statsby in var command** - Previous by thread:
**st: Use of statsby in var command** - Next by thread:
**st: R: Re: STATA/detectable difference** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2016 StataCorp LP | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |