Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

Main page Policy/Terms of Use Abbreviations Latest Posts

 Log in |  Register |  Search

Back to the forum  2018-07-20 11:29 CEST (UTC+2h)

CVintra for Cmax > AUC, therefore use AUC for sample size? [Power / Sample Size]

posted by ElMaestro - Denmark, 2017-08-07 23:04  - Posting: # 17679
Views: 3,118

Hi nobody,

» Any thoughts on this approach?

What a load of absolute nonsense.

And it is of a dangerous kind because it:

1. Misleads the guys with spreadsheets into cheaper but seemingly better studies.
2. Increases the likelihood of failure.
= it increases the risk of futile exposure of volunteers.


I am serious, this is deeply problematic cf. e.g. the Helsinki Declaration and the general GCP principles. This is much worse than the recent Midichloria case.
Check the reference list in that publication for a good laugh, by the way.


Edit: Background “Predatory Journals Hit By ‘Star Wars’ Sting” [Helmut]

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 17 (1 registered, 16 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