Upper 90% CL 0.17% > U [Study As­sess­ment]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2018-04-29 23:46  – Posting: # 18743
Views: 1,355

Hi balakotu,

please give complete information: Sample size (if unbalanced: number of subjects per sequences), observed GMR, and 90% CI. Was it a 4-period (TRTR|RTRT) or a 3-period (TRT|RTR) design? Target power and GMR assumed in study planning?

» […] relaxed 90% Confidence Intervals

<nitpick>

You mean: Expanded (acceptance) limits

</nitpick>

» Is there any way to justify Europe regulatory authority(ies) to accept this study data?

Are you talking about ‘bending the rules’ and convince them accepting it? Chances are pretty low (patient’s risk >0.05). Furthermore, some European statisticians are already aware of the potential inflation of Type I Error in reference-scaling, which might be the case with your CVwR of 38.9%.

Cheers,
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. ☼
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

Activity
 Mix view
Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum |  Admin contact
19,487 posts in 4,135 threads, 1,336 registered users;
online 12 (0 registered, 12 guests [including 6 identified bots]).
Forum time (Europe/Vienna): 18:57 CEST

If debugging is the process of removing bugs,
then programming must be the process of putting them in.    Edsger W. Dijkstra

The BIOEQUIVALENCE / BIOAVAILABILITY FORUM is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5