Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

Main page Policy/Terms of Use Abbreviations Latest Posts

 Log-in |  Register |  Search

Back to the forum  Query: 2017-08-18 01:11 CEST (UTC+2h)
 

Bear vs. Phoenix & SAS [R for BE/BA]

posted by Helmut Homepage - Vienna, Austria, 2015-04-20 17:34  - Posting: # 14718
Views: 8,346

Dear all,

I closed this thread. Let’s continue over here. I would say that nowadays few people perform a replicated study without having reference-scaling in mind. What would we need in bear?
We have shown in the past that we get the same results for EMA’s data sets I & II (also when we make #II unbalanced) in PHX and SAS (THX to Shuanghe and Jean-Michel!). I would say, that’s the target.


PS: @ElMaestro. Remember that one of the referees of our reference dataset-MS wanted to discuss the statistical model and we refused? Until somebody shows that what regulators want right now is crap (which will happen – at least partly) we should get the same results independent from the software used. I would be happy if a noncommercial one is amongst them.

[image]All the best,
Helmut Schütz 
[image]

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

Complete thread:

Back to the forum Activity
 Mix view
Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum | Admin contact
17,204 Posts in 3,684 Threads, 1,054 registered users;
25 users online (0 registered, 25 guests).

Statistics is the art of never having to say you’re wrong.
Variance is what any two statisticians are at.    C.J. Bradfield

The BIOEQUIVALENCE / BIOAVAILABILITY FORUM is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
XHTML/CSS RSS Feed