Hey wait a moment.... [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by ElMaestro  – Belgium?, 2018-06-27 08:29  – Posting: # 18972
Views: 4,754

Good morning Hötzi,

» Good point – I missed that! In the past I did not adjust because only one will be marketed (i.e., the entire patient’s risk lies with this product). However, some regulatory statisticians (you know, coffee break chats) seem to be more strict because one gets two chances of passing. Too lazy to crawl the supplementary material of your paper about pilot studies: Is such a case covered?

Whose paper? :-D:-D:-D Some crackpot had one published paper and it covered the case of one product being tested in a pilot, then in a pivotal trial, depending on the figures. Rumours have it he is working on another manuscript dealing with scenarios like the one in this thread and that reviewers are way too tough. But then again, you cannot always trust rumours. Only trust google and wikipedia. :-)


Hi all,

ok you'll think that I am nuts, but I think I will need to put it into reverse here:

Let us say both R1 and R2 are (truly) not BE. For simplicity think of them as products with the exact same properties even though they formally may be called something different. Since we are happy if we approve one of them, applying alpha=5% could inflate the type I error (approval of a non-BE product) if the true relative performances are around the acceptance borders.

We need that alpha correction. Sorry.


Edit: Two posts merged. [Helmut]

Le tits now.

Best regards,
ElMaestro

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
20,250 posts in 4,262 threads, 1,398 registered users;
online 12 (0 registered, 12 guests [including 8 identified bots]).
Forum time (Europe/Vienna): 04:48 CET

No written law has ever been more binding than
unwritten custom supported by popular opinion.    Carrie Chapman Catt

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