Old references… [Power / Sample Size]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2021-09-13 17:52 (1749 d 16:26 ago) – Posting: # 22569
Views: 4,613

Hi Selwa,

❝ Hello dear community, I need to download a PDF article which I did not have access to, and at the same time I would like to have references if possible in the same subject: calculation of the number of subjects in bioequivalence and evaluation of sample size.


A more exhaustive list (also quoted in the article you mentioned) is given by Steinijans et al.*

❝ Référence of the article : Estimated coefficient of variation values for sample size planning bioequivalence studies DOI:10.5414/CPP39037.


I have it. If you want I can send you a scan. However, old references are problematic. You have no clue about the clinical performance and the bioanalytical methods used. Therefore, you should be extremely cautious relying on the reported values.
If you want to design a study, I suggest to find recent publications about the drug you are interested in. The FDA’s ANDA files and European Public Assessment Reports are helpful. An advice: The larger a study is, the more reliable the reported variability. If the CV is not given, you can calculate it from the confidence interval, the design, and the sample size (see there).


  1. Steinijans VW, Sauter R, Hauschke D, Diletti E, Schall R, Luus HG, Elze E, Blume H, Hoffmann C, Franke G, Siegmund W. Reference tables for the intrasubject coefficient of variation in bioequivalence studies. Int J Clin Pharm Therap. 1995; 33(8): 427-430. PMID 8556220.

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,570 registered users;
314 visitors (0 registered, 314 guests [including 15 identified bots]).
Forum time: 10:18 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Most scientists today are devoid of ideas, full of fear, intent on
producing some paltry result so that they can add to the flood
of inane papers that now constitutes “scientific progress”
in many areas.    Paul Feyerabend

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