Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

Main page Policy/Terms of Use Abbreviations Latest Posts

 Log-in |  Register |  Search

Back to the forum  Query: 2017-10-17 00:06 UTC (UTC+2h)
 

forced BE? [Design Issues]

posted by ElMaestro - Denmark, 2017-08-07 11:44  - Posting: # 17668
Views: 914

Hi Hötzi,

» (blahblah) The basis of these estimates should also be given. It is important to investigate the sensitivity of the sample size estimate to a variety of deviations from these assumptions and this may be facilitated by providing a range of sample sizes appropriate for a reasonable range of deviations from assumptions. In confirmatory trials, assumptions should normally be based on published data or on the results of earlier trials.

Yessir!!!!!!!!
Thanks for bringing it up.

That is indeed why we need to apply more bootstrapping in BE.

It, too, tells what sample size we need, but in contrast to ordinary power calcs it allows one to take into account that residuals may not be normal even though the evaluation itself makes that assumption. And that is a story for another day.

I could be wrong, but…


Best regards,
ElMaestro

- since June 2017 having an affair with the bootstrap.

Complete thread:

Back to the forum Activity
 Mix view
Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum | Admin contact
17,394 Posts in 3,725 Threads, 1,071 registered users;
29 users online (0 registered, 29 guests).

The rise of biometry in this 20th century,
like that of geometry in the 3rd century before Christ,
seems to mark out one of the great ages or critical periods
in the advance of the human understanding.    R.A. Fisher

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