Final EMA oracle [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2010-02-01 15:54 (5974 d 23:58 ago) – Posting: # 4682
Views: 27,731

Dear d_labes, dear HS,

it was only an attempt from my side to guess how regulators would think in relation to that sentence; it was not an attempt to justify the science behind it.

What makes me think like I do has to do with
  1. Vocabulary. I think the sentence leaves little room for interpretation in its present form. The way that sentence is written I would definitely say that pruning a dataset (however bad science one may think it is) is compliant.

  2. Regulatory checking of results. In several countries across Europe, I think assessor teams do not routinely involve statisticians and the capability of an assessor to check results will in such cases be limited to simpler data like those from 2-seq 2-per 2-trt studies. If the applicant can prune the data they become widely checkable.
    Bear also in mind that the reason why only noncomportmental modeling is accepted has in large part to do with exactly the same.

Best regards
EM.

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,653 posts in 4,991 threads, 1,571 registered users;
190 visitors (0 registered, 190 guests [including 17 identified bots]).
Forum time: 16:53 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Outside his own ever-narrowing field of specialization,
a scientist is a layman.
What members of an academy of science have in common
is a certain form of semiparasitic living.    Erwin Chargaff

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