Uncertainty of CVs; AUC72 - actual vs. nominal time [Power / Sample Size]

posted by jag009  – NJ, 2012-05-11 20:13 (5145 d 20:34 ago) – Posting: # 8563
Views: 6,870

❝ You are aware that you may loose power according to this procedure? What if the CRO want’s to make money (they all do)1 and tell the subjects.


Well I don't forsee that big of a problem and I think 1 hour is more than reasonable. I haven't seen a study so far which has subjects with a > 1 hr deviation on sample collection time.

Cost will be the problem if we have to house the subject for 72 hours. I need to run fast and fed studies (for 2 strengths, not proportional).. I agree that we can go down on sample size to compensate...

❝ 1. “We are really terribly sorry that the study did not pass due to so many excluded subjects. Do you want to repeat it in a larger sample size?”

❝ 2. Flimsy excuse. Public transportation is a nightmare everywhere in the US, IMHO.


More like tough luck, that is the client's problem so just pay us and we wil rerun the study. Hey I am runnig with 48 subjects! BTW, not running in US though. :-|

Yes it's Friday! :party:

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,653 posts in 4,991 threads, 1,570 registered users;
117 visitors (0 registered, 117 guests [including 25 identified bots]).
Forum time: 16:47 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

To propose that poor design can be corrected by subtle analysis techniques
is contrary to good scientific thinking.    Stuart J. Pocock

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