80% confidence ? [Power / Sample Size]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2010-03-19 14:02 (5927 d 10:18 ago) – Posting: # 4938
Views: 16,157

Dear Helmut!

❝ In the thread mentioned above I used a 95% CI, which is quite over-weary… Patterson & Jones (2006) recommend an 80% one-sided-interval (or the common producer's risk of 20%).

Sorry, but I can't verify that 80% :confused:.
In Patterson, Jones "BIOEQUIVALENCE and STATISTICS in CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY", Chapter 5.7, page 164 (of my copy) in the text it is mentioned "... with an upper 50% confidence bound ..." which is clearly a typo.
If I try to verify their example (Table 5.6) I get the upper confidence bound mentioned only if I use alpha=5%.

BTW: I nevertheless are the opinion that a 95% CI is too stringent.
But have no reference for it. Patterson and Jones cite Gould in this context.

Gould, A.L. (1995) Group sequential extensions of a standard
bioequivalence testing procedure.

J. Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics, 23, 57–86.

Since I don't have this on file yet, I can't verify if this is also only a typo?

Regards,

Detlew

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,653 posts in 4,991 threads, 1,570 registered users;
162 visitors (0 registered, 162 guests [including 16 identified bots]).
Forum time: 01:21 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
But, in practice, there is.    Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut

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