Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Mar 4.
Published in final edited form as: Biom J. 2019 Sep 17;62(2):282–310. doi: 10.1002/bimj.201900027

TABLE 4.

Formula-based sample size (N4) and estimated Monte Carlo power (P^) at β = 0.2 and α = 0.025, based on hypothesis test of H0 : μd1μd2or or μd1μd8 versus H1 : μd1>μd2&μd1>μd8, under varying average of absolute effect sizes (|δ|¯=j=28|δd1dj|/7) or standardized effect size (|δ*|¯=j=28|δd1dj/σd1dj|/7) and treatment “3” response rate (γd1), skewness (λ) and degrees of freedom (ν), given treatment “8” response rate γd5=0.5, σ1 = 0.95, σ1 = 1, λ = 0.975, τ = 0.85, expected % of available teeth per patient pi = 80%

Absolute effect size Skewness Degrees of freedom Response rate Standardized effect size Formula-based sample size Monte Carlo power
|δ| λ v γd1 |δ*| N4 P^
1.50 0 Inf 0.25 0.48 95.00 0.79
3.75 0.51 71.00 0.80
1.00 0.5 0.35 179.00 0.80
2.50 0.37 132.00 0.81
1.50 8 0.25 0.48 96.00 0.80
3.75 0.51 71.00 0.81
1.00 0.5 0.35 180.00 0.80
2.50 0.37 132.00 0.80
1.50 5 0.25 0.47 97.00 0.80
3.75 0.51 71.00 0.80
1.00 0.5 0.35 182.00 0.81
2.50 0.37 132.00 0.79
1.50 3 0.25 0.47 101.00 0.80
3.75 0.51 72.00 0.81
1.00 0.5 0.34 189.00 0.80
2.50 0.37 134.00 0.79
1.50 2 Inf 0.25 0.36 161.00 0.79
3.75 0.44 93.00 0.79
1.00 0.5 0.26 297.00 0.79
2.50 0.33 172.00 0.79
1.50 8 0.25 0.35 173.00 0.78
3.75 0.43 97.00 0.79
1.00 0.5 0.26 318.00 0.78
2.50 0.32 179.00 0.79
1.50 5 0.25 0.34 183.00 0.78
3.75 0.43 100.00 0.79
1.00 0.5 0.25 336.00 0.78
2.50 0.32 184.00 0.79
1.50 3 0.25 0.32 209.00 0.80
3.75 0.42 107.00 0.79
1.00 0.5 0.24 383.00 0.79
2.50 0.31 197.00 0.80
1.50 10 Inf 0.25 0.35 172.00 0.78
3.75 0.43 97.00 0.81
1.00 0.5 0.26 316.00 0.79
2.50 0.32 179.00 0.79
1.50 8 0.25 0.34 186.00 0.79
3.75 0.43 101.00 0.79
1.00 0.5 0.25 344.00 0.80
2.50 0.32 185.00 0.80
1.50 5 0.25 0.33 198.00 0.78
3.75 0.42 104.00 0.79
1.00 0.5 0.24 362.00 0.79
2.50 0.31 192.00 0.79
1.50 3 0.25 0.31 229.00 0.79
3.75 0.41 112.00 0.78
1.00 0.5 0.23 418.00 0.79
2.50 0.30 207.00 0.79