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

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2018-04-29 23:46  – Posting: # 18743
Views: 1,031

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
19,267 posts in 4,098 threads, 1,314 registered users;
online 7 (0 registered, 7 guests [including 4 identified bots]).

That which is not controversial
is of no particular interest.    Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

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