[Opinion] Should the 90% CI for GMR be required to encompass 1 [RSABE / ABEL]

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2018-03-29 01:03 (2217 d 22:08 ago) – Posting: # 18610
Views: 10,090

Hi bf,

❝ I was using the 100/112/125 example...


there are two things in this:
  1. In some cases the usual 80.00%-125.00% criterion may not be optimal and in those cases alternatives must be sought.
  2. I am not aware of any problem of any kind, which has practical relevance and which can be solved by imposing a mandatory span for the CI across the 100% mark.
The example you mention appears very hypothetical, doesn't it?
If it existed that way then you could definbitely do a Finney bioassay to derive relative potency and a CI of the same. Now that's a horse of another color.:-D:-D

Pass or fail!
ElMaestro

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,993 posts in 4,828 threads, 1,654 registered users;
62 visitors (0 registered, 62 guests [including 6 identified bots]).
Forum time: 23:12 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

If you don’t like something change it;
if you can’t change it, change the way you think about it.    Mary Engelbreit

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