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 00:07 UTC (UTC+2h)

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

posted by ElMaestro - Denmark, 2017-08-07 21:04  - Posting: # 17679
Views: 931

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]

I could be wrong, but…

Best regards,

- 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

BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz