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

st: Re: STATA/detectable difference

From   Paul Seed <[email protected]>
To   "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
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

[email protected], [email protected]

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 <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]>

> 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:

© Copyright 1996–2024 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index