Validation of Decision-enabling Tools: Showing That the Model Is Useful

  • Niclas SjögrenEmail author
  • Stig Johan Wiklund


The rapidly increasing cost to develop new drugs calls for new tools that efficiently enable the demonstration of the safety and effectiveness of a new drug. When validating such a decision-enabling tool, a traditional approach is typically to apply the tool on a positive control, known to be effective, and ascertain that a statistically significant effect is obtained. We argue, however, that the validation study should be designed to show that the tool provides a variability that is small in relation to the treatment effect, which means that the tool has the capacity of providing decision-enabling results in small-sample studies in routine use.

We give details on the relevant test to perform in the validation of a decision-enabling tool and use the development of a human pharmacological model, aimed at studying neuropathic pain in 2 × 2 crossover trials, as a motivating example. We also develop power and sample size calculations, and illustrate the implications on sample size needed for a validation study. Results show that to obtain pertinent evidence that the decision-enabling tool is useful, that is, to reject the relevant null hypothesis, a substantially increased sample size would often be needed in the validation study, as compared to traditional approaches.


Model validation Coeffcient of variation Relative standard deviation Effect size Noncentral t distribution 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Pharmaceutical Industry Profle 2010. Washington, DC: PhRMA; 2010. Scholar
  2. 2.
    DiMasi JA. Grabowski HG. The cost of biopharmaceutical R&D: is biotech different? Manag Decision Econ. 2007;28:469–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    DiMasi JA. Hansen RW, Grabowski HG. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ. 2003;22(2):151–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Bickel A. Dorfs S, Schmelz M. Forster C, Uhl W. Handwerker HO. Effects of antihyperalgesic drugs on experimentally induced hyperalgesia in man. Pain. 1998;76:317–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sycha T. Gustorff B, Lehr S. Tanew A. Eichler HG, Schmetterer L. A simple pain model for the evaluation of analgesic effects of NSAIDs in healthy subjects. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2003;56:165–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Julious SA. Tutorial in biostatistics sample size calculation for clinical trials with normal data. Stat Med. 2004;23:1921–1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lehmann EL. Testing Statistical Hypotheses, 2nd ed. New York: Chapman and Hall; 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Drug Information Association, Inc 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiostatisticsPrincipal Statistician, AstraZeneca R&DSödertäljeSweden
  2. 2.Department of BiostatisticsStatistical Science Director, AstraZeneca R&DSödertäljeSweden

Personalised recommendations