Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

Main page Policy/Terms of Use Abbreviations Latest Posts

 Log-in |  Register |  Search

Back to the forum  Query: 2017-12-11 18:15 CET (UTC+1h)
 

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: 1,307

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,
ElMaestro

A potentially biased estimator may be a relevant estimator. The case of REML speaks volumes.

Complete thread:

Back to the forum Activity
 Mix view
Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum | Admin contact
17,550 Posts in 3,757 Threads, 1,089 registered users;
34 users online (0 registered, 34 guests).

To know much is often the cause of doubting more.    Michel de Montaigne

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