Interesting! [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2017-03-29 13:20 (2575 d 10:34 ago) – Posting: # 17201
Views: 8,661

Hi DavidManteigas and d_labes,

❝ I'm also struggling with the question now. A 90% CI compares with a hypothesis test at 10%. The 90% CI is equivalent to a statistical assessment of equivalente at the 5% level due the TOST approach, since you're not assessing significance for the null hypothesis of difference in means.


I beg to differ; the 90% CI approach applies a 5% alpha. A product which in not truly BE (GMR is 0.8 or below; or 1.25 or higher, can't be both), will have at most 5% chance of passing BE; te CI is made from 1.0-2alpha but that does not mean 10% chance of approving a non-BE product.

It is the same alpha 5% that is used in the ANOVA where the null hypo is sameness.

If I am wrong here then it is my very basic understanding of statistics that needs thorough remodeling.

Pass or fail!
ElMaestro

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,984 posts in 4,822 threads, 1,652 registered users;
47 visitors (0 registered, 47 guests [including 5 identified bots]).
Forum time: 23:55 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

You can’t fix by analysis
what you bungled by design.    Richard J. Light, Judith D. Singer, John B. Willett

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