Scientific approaches to the deposit insurance scheme classification

У статті систематизовано існуючі підходи до класифікації систем гарантування вкладів, визначено сутність, переваги та недоліки різних видів систем гарантування вкладів. Досліджено місце вітчизняної системи гарантування вкладів у загальній класифікаціїThe article defines the existing approaches to the deposit insurance scheme classification, the essence, advantages and disadvantages of various types of deposit insurance schemes. It is also given the place of national deposit guarantee system in the general classificatio

Coverage of the 95% confidence interval estimation method of Bucher for .

<p>For each simulation setting, coverage was assessed by tracking the percentage of simulations producing confidence intervals for that captured the true value of . For settings where , the true value of was . (Note: The true average event rate in group A was either 10% or 30%).</p

Percentage of simulations producing indirect estimates of exceeding a given threshold corresponding to the simulation settings where (or, equivalently, ).

<p>Four different thresholds were considered for each simulation setting: 1.38, 1.49, 1.72 and 2.01. These thresholds were chosen to represent an approximate increase of 20%, 30%, 50% and 75% in the value of . Reported percentages quantify the degree to which Bucher's method over-estimates. (Note: The true average event rate in group A was 40%).</p

Coverage of the 95% confidence interval estimation method of Bucher for .

<p>For each simulation setting, coverage was assessed by tracking the percentage of simulations producing confidence intervals for that captured the true value of . For settings where , the true value of was . (Note: The true average event rate in group A was either 10% or 30%).</p

Type I error associated with the test of the hypotheses versus .

<p>For each simulation setting where (or, equivalently, ), Type I error was assessed by tracking the percentage of simulations that produced 95% confidence intervals that excluded the value . (Note: The true average event rate in group A was either 10% or 30%).</p

Percentage of simulations producing indirect estimates of exceeding a given threshold corresponding to the simulation settings where .

<p>Four different thresholds were considered for each simulation setting: 1.40, 1.52, 1.75 and 2.05. These thresholds were chosen to represent an approximate increase of 20%, 30%, 50% and 75% in the value of . Reported percentages quantify the degree to which Bucher's method over-estimates. (Note: The true average event rate in group A was either 10% or 30%).</p

Power associated with the test of the hypotheses versus .

<p>For each simulation setting where (or, equivalently, ), power was assessed by tracking the percentage of simulations that produced 95% confidence intervals for that excluded the value . (Note: The true average event rate in group A was 40%).</p

Probability of difference between the estimated and true ORR≥0.10 in the unconditional setting scenario 3.

<p> <i>ORR: odds ratio reduction; PF: prognostic factor.</i></p

Simulation scenarios for the unconditional and conditional settings.

*<p> <i>Relative risk of having an outcome event for people receiving the experimental treatment (vs. control treatment) without the prognostic factor.</i></p>†<p> <i>Relative risk of having an outcome for people with vs. without the PF in the control group.</i></p

Bias, simulation standard deviation (SD), coverage proportion and statistical power for the unadjusted and adjusted logOR, in scenario 1, the unconditional setting, with 2000 patients per arm.

<p>The unadjusted model is indicated by the dotted line with hollow circles, and the adjusted model is indicated by the solid line with filled circles.</p