CVintra for Cmax > AUC, therefore use AUC for sample size? [Power / Sample Size]

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2017-08-08 01:04 (3244 d 10:59 ago) – Posting: # 17679
Views: 11,072

Hi nobody,

❝ Any thoughts on this approach?


What a load of absolute nonsense.

And it is of a dangerous kind because it:
  1. Misleads the guys with spreadsheets into cheaper but seemingly better studies.
  2. Increases the likelihood of failure.
= it increases the risk of futile exposure of volunteers.

I am serious, this is deeply problematic cf. e.g. the Helsinki Declaration and the general GCP principles. This is much worse than the recent Midichloria case.
Check the reference list in that publication for a good laugh, by the way.


Edit: Background “Predatory Journals Hit By ‘Star Wars’ Sting” [Helmut]

Pass or fail!
ElMaestro

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,571 registered users;
351 visitors (0 registered, 351 guests [including 19 identified bots]).
Forum time: 12:04 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence
than does knowledge.    Charles Darwin

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