Imbalanced cross-overs [Study Per­for­mance]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2014-06-06 16:47 (4049 d 05:14 ago) – Posting: # 13038
Views: 19,455

Hi Khaoula,

❝ […] we collected the results of 15 subjects and we analyzed Kinetica without protocol for the management of dropouts


[image]We recently have submitted a paper to the AAPS J (which currently is under review). It seems that Kinetica is not able to correctly deal with imbalanced studies. I strongly suggest to use another soft­ware (we got correct results in R, Phoenix/WinNonlin, EquivTest/PK, and SAS).

❝ we had abberants results: for Cmax CV = 0,03 % for hight variable drug …


I don’t understand what you mean here. The limit for HVDs/HVDPs is 30% CV of the reference obtained in a replicate design. CVintra from a 2×2 serves only as a hint of a highly variable reference (since pooled from CVWR and CVWT).

❝ power: 50% …


A posteriori (aka post-hoc) power is irrelevant in BE. Stop calculating it.
Either the study passes, or not.

❝ with subject effect and subject/sequence effect


Subject effects are normal in a cross-over. It tells you that subjects differ – well, they should…

❝ […] the exclusion of subject N 15 have impact in the result of the study?


If evaluated by Kinetica, yes. :-(

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,428 posts in 4,929 threads, 1,686 registered users;
86 visitors (0 registered, 86 guests [including 14 identified bots]).
Forum time: 22:02 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

No matter what side of the argument you are on,
you always find people on your side
that you wish were on the other.    Thomas Berger

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5