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

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2017-08-08 01:04 (2425 d 02:08 ago) – Posting: # 17679
Views: 8,694

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]

Pass or fail!
ElMaestro

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,957 posts in 4,819 threads, 1,636 registered users;
71 visitors (0 registered, 71 guests [including 5 identified bots]).
Forum time: 02:12 CET (Europe/Vienna)

With four parameters I can fit an elephant,
and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.    John von Neumann

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5