IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/stpapr/v65y2024i9d10.1007_s00362-024-01599-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The distribution of power-related random variables (and their use in clinical trials)

Author

Listed:
  • Francesco Mariani

    (Sapienza University of Rome)

  • Fulvio De Santis

    (Sapienza University of Rome)

  • Stefania Gubbiotti

    (Sapienza University of Rome)

Abstract

In the hybrid Bayesian-frequentist approach to hypotheses tests, the power function, i.e. the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis, is a random variable and a pre-experimental evaluation of the study is commonly carried out through the so-called probability of success (PoS). PoS is usually defined as the expected value of the random power that is not necessarily a well-representative summary of the entire distribution. Here, we consider the main definitions of PoS and investigate the power related random variables that induce them. We provide general expressions for their cumulative distribution and probability density functions, as well as closed-form expressions when the test statistic is, at least asymptotically, normal. The analysis of such distributions highlights discrepancies in the main definitions of PoS, leading us to prefer the one based on the utility function of the test. We illustrate our idea through an example and an application to clinical trials, which is a framework where PoS is commonly employed.

Suggested Citation

  • Francesco Mariani & Fulvio De Santis & Stefania Gubbiotti, 2024. "The distribution of power-related random variables (and their use in clinical trials)," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 65(9), pages 5555-5574, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:stpapr:v:65:y:2024:i:9:d:10.1007_s00362-024-01599-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s00362-024-01599-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00362-024-01599-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00362-024-01599-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anthony O’Hagan & John W. Stevens, 2001. "Bayesian Assessment of Sample Size for Clinical Trials of Cost-Effectiveness," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(3), pages 219-230, May.
    2. Harlan Campbell & Paul Gustafson, 2023. "Bayes Factors and Posterior Estimation: Two Sides of the Very Same Coin," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 77(3), pages 248-258, July.
    3. Kevin Kunzmann & Michael J. Grayling & Kim May Lee & David S. Robertson & Kaspar Rufibach & James M. S. Wason, 2021. "A Review of Bayesian Perspectives on Sample Size Derivation for Confirmatory Trials," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 75(4), pages 424-432, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. A. Gafni & S. D. Walter & S. Birch & P. Sendi, 2008. "An opportunity cost approach to sample size calculation in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(1), pages 99-107, January.
    2. Fulvio De Santis & Stefania Gubbiotti, 2021. "On the predictive performance of a non-optimal action in hypothesis testing," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 30(2), pages 689-709, June.
    3. Konstantinos Bourazas & Guido Consonni & Laura Deldossi, 2024. "Bayesian sample size determination for detecting heterogeneity in multi-site replication studies," TEST: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 33(3), pages 697-716, September.
    4. Andrew R. Willan & Matthew E. Kowgier, 2008. "Cost‐effectiveness analysis of a multinational RCT with a binary measure of effectiveness and an interacting covariate," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(7), pages 777-791, July.
    5. Daniel P Beavers & James D Stamey, 2018. "Bayesian sample size determination for cost-effectiveness studies with censored data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-16, January.
    6. Alan Brennan & Samer A. Kharroubi, 2007. "Expected value of sample information for Weibull survival data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(11), pages 1205-1225, November.
    7. Alan Brennan & Samer A. Kharroubi, 2007. "Expected value of sample information for Weibull survival data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(11), pages 1205-1225.
    8. Thompson, Nathanael M. & Brorsen, B. Wade & DeVuyst, Eric A. & Lusk, Jayson L., 2016. "Random Sampling of Beef Cattle for Genetic Testing: Optimal Sample Size Determination," 2016 Annual Meeting, February 6-9, 2016, San Antonio, Texas 229195, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    9. Pierpaolo Brutti & Fulvio Santis & Stefania Gubbiotti, 2014. "Bayesian-frequentist sample size determination: a game of two priors," METRON, Springer;Sapienza Università di Roma, vol. 72(2), pages 133-151, August.
    10. Henry Glick, 2011. "Sample Size and Power for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (Part 1)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 189-198, March.
    11. C. Armero & G. García‐Donato & A. López‐Quílez, 2010. "Bayesian methods in cost–effectiveness studies: objectivity, computation and other relevant aspects," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(6), pages 629-643, June.
    12. Simon Eckermann & Andrew R. Willan, 2009. "Globally optimal trial design for local decision making," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(2), pages 203-216, February.
    13. Miguel A. Negrín & Francisco J. Vázquez‐Polo, 2006. "Bayesian cost‐effectiveness analysis with two measures of effectiveness: the cost‐effectiveness acceptability plane," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 363-372, April.
    14. Armando Turchetta & Erica E. M. Moodie & David A. Stephens & Sylvie D. Lambert, 2023. "Bayesian sample size calculations for comparing two strategies in SMART studies," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(3), pages 2489-2502, September.
    15. P. Brutti & F. Santis & S. Gubbiotti, 2013. "Robust Bayesian monitoring of sequential trials," METRON, Springer;Sapienza Università di Roma, vol. 71(1), pages 81-95, June.
    16. Andrew Willan, 2011. "Sample Size Determination for Cost-Effectiveness Trials," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(11), pages 933-949, November.
    17. Theodoros Mantopoulos & Paul M. Mitchell & Nicky J. Welton & Richard McManus & Lazaros Andronis, 2016. "Choice of statistical model for cost-effectiveness analysis and covariate adjustment: empirical application of prominent models and assessment of their results," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(8), pages 927-938, November.
    18. F. J. Vázquez‐Polo & M. A. Negrín Hernández & B. González López‐Valcárcel, 2005. "Using covariates to reduce uncertainty in the economic evaluation of clinical trial data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(6), pages 545-557, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:stpapr:v:65:y:2024:i:9:d:10.1007_s00362-024-01599-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.