Interim analyses and stopping rules — does this still hold? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked.
Interim analyses and stopping rules, from the point of view of someone who has read the documentation and is still stuck.
Saying which parts I have understood so that nobody wastes time re-explaining them, and where exactly the understanding stops.
Adding the measurement that the opening post says would settle it.
Absolute and relative effects answer different questions. Write down the event rate in each arm and the difference between them; everything quotable is derived from those two numbers.
Post #4 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
On Interim analyses and stopping rules the community has more anecdote than the confidence in this thread implies, and I include my own contribution in that.
Second this, and I would have said it less carefully.
Everything in post #24 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Absolute numbers, not just relative: a 30% relative reduction tells you the ratio but not the practical magnitude. The event rate in each arm and the difference between them tells you how many people benefit.
Read the full topic (35 posts)
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
What a statistical analysis plan adds that the paper does not
What a statistical analysis plan adds that the paper does not — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Statistical analysis plan, and specifically the version…
|
2 | 6.6k | 10h | |
|
Reading a trial's population section before its results — does this still hold?
Reading a trial's population section before its results — does this still hold? I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Reading STEP 1 ( N Engl J Med , 2021)…
|
+140 | 154 | 5.4k | 14mo |
|
Comparators chosen for regulatory reasons rather than clinical ones
On the subject in the title: Comparators chosen for regulatory reasons rather than clinical ones Working notes rather than a conclusion. An honest uncertainty about comparators chosen for regulatory reasons…
|
2 | 27k | 14mo | |
|
Subgroup analyses: pre-specified versus discovered
Subgroup analyses: pre-specified versus discovered — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I would like to disagree carefully with the settled view on subgroup analyses, and I…
|
2 | 27k | 1d | |
|
Run-in periods and the population they select — the long version
Run-in periods and the population they select — the long version Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. A narrow question about Run-in periods, deliberately narrow,…
|
2 | 8.9k | 4mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Amylin analogue mechanism: satiety signalling separate from GLP-1
Amylin analogue mechanism: satiety signalling separate from GLP-1 — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Trying to work out what would count as evidence on amylin analogue…
|
+128 | 142 | 38k | 13mo |
|
Journal club: STEP 1 and the treatment-policy estimand — does this still hold?
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Journal club: STEP 1 and the treatment-policy estimand — does this still hold? Working notes on STEP 1 rather than a conclusion. I would rather…
|
+118 | 132 | 12k | 15mo |
|
Reading a combination trial: attributing effect to components
On the subject in the title: Reading a combination trial: attributing effect to components Working notes rather than a conclusion. Collecting what is known about reading a combination trial in one place,…
|
4 | 19k | 11mo | |
|
Amylin and gastric emptying: overlapping mechanisms with incretins
On the subject in the title: Amylin and gastric emptying: overlapping mechanisms with incretins Working notes rather than a conclusion. Posting a small dataset on amylin and gastric emptying. It is mine, it…
|
2 | 50k | 17mo | |
|
Why a glucagon receptor agonist in a weight-loss compound is not a contradiction — one year on
Why a glucagon receptor agonist in a weight-loss compound is not a contradiction — one year on — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. The question about…
|
+3 | 7 | 1k | 2mo |