Table 2.

Empirical probabilities of rejecting the null hypothesis: five subgroups (no interim monitoring, 25 patients per subgroup, 10,000 replications)

Design	True response rate in each subgroup
Case 1	.1	.3	.3	.3	.3
Subgroup-specific analyses	.096	.909	.912	.910	.914
HB* Model 1 moderate borrowing	.096	.909	.912	.910	.914
HB Model 1 strong borrowing	.098	.895	.893	.892	.891
HB Model 2 (Berry et al)	.096	.899	.898	.896	.899
Case 2	.1	.1	.3	.3	.3
Subgroup-specific analyses	.096	.096	.912	.910	.914
HB Model 1 moderate borrowing	.096	.096	.912	.910	.914
HB Model 1 strong borrowing	.085	.096	.842	.842	.842
HB Model 2 (Berry et al)	.091	.091	.853	.855	.858
Case 3	.1	.1	.1	.3	.3
Subgroup-specific analyses	.096	.096	.097	.910	.914
HB Model 1 moderate borrowing	.096	.096	.097	.910	.914
HB Model 1 strong borrowing	.058	.061	.058	.807	.809
HB Model 2 (Berry et al)	.067	.065	.062	.817	.820
Case 4	.1	.1	.1	.1	.3
Subgroup-specific analyses	.096	.096	.097	.096	.914
HB Model 1 moderate borrowing	.096	.096	.097	.096	.914
HB Model 1 strong borrowing	.037	.040	.038	.038	.762
HB Model 2 (Berry et al)	.041	.041	.036	.043	.791
Case 5	.1	.1	.1	.1	.1
Subgroup-specific analyses	.096	.096	.097	.096	.099
HB Model 1 moderate borrowing	.096	.096	.097	.096	.099
HB Model 1 strong borrowing	.025	.030	.029	.030	.025
HB Model 2 (Berry et al)	.032	.033	.030	.030	.033
Case 6	.3	.3	.3	.3	.3
Subgroup-specific analyses	.912	.909	.912	.910	.914
HB Model 1 moderate borrowing	.912	.909	.912	.910	.914
HB Model 1 strong borrowing	.907	.910	.907	.911	.911
HB Model 2 (Berry et al)	.911	.908	.912	.910	.913

^*HB = hierarchical Bayesian