Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

Main page Policy/Terms of Use Abbreviations Latest Posts

 Log in |  Register |  Search

Back to the forum  2018-07-20 11:32 CEST (UTC+2h)

forced BE? [Design Issues]

posted by ElMaestro - Denmark, 2017-08-07 13:44  - Posting: # 17668
Views: 4,778

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.

if (3) 4

Best regards,
ElMaestro

"(...) targeted cancer therapies will benefit fewer than 2 percent of the cancer patients they’re aimed at. That reality is often lost on consumers, who are being fed a steady diet of winning anecdotes about miracle cures." New York Times (ed.), June 9, 2018.

Complete thread:

Back to the forum Activity
 Mix view
Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum |  Admin contact
18,547 posts in 3,941 threads, 1,192 registered users;
online 18 (1 registered, 17 guests [including 12 identified bots]).

If there is an exception to any rule,
and if it can be proved by observation,
that rule is wrong.    Richard Feynman

The BIOEQUIVALENCE / BIOAVAILABILITY FORUM is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5 RSS Feed