A reviewer which doesn't review isn't a good reviewer [Power / Sample Size]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2012-04-11 11:57 (5181 d 00:50 ago) – Posting: # 8406
Views: 9,049

Dear Helmut, dear Daniel!

Funny stuff.

The very best IMHO:
"... Statistical analysis of the PK parameters (I see Helmut breathing deep :-D) including these two (2) subjects are within acceptable limits (LAUC 0.87 - 1.01%, LAUCinf 0.92 - 1.05% and LCmax 0.8 - 1.15%).

The DBE comment: The reviewer has reviewed the information submitted and the firm's response is acceptable."
(sic!)

Ok not being so straight nitpicking and viewing the % as due to the Druckfehlerteufel (typo gremlin) it must be stated: CI's given as ratios with 2 decimals acceptable!
And that within that regulatory body which is responsible for the rule "... [image] to pass a CI limit of 80 to 125, the value would be at least 80.00 and not more than 125.00 ..." (clearly meant as %) now also adapted by the EMA :cool:.

I bet a case of best Czech beer that the lower limit for Cmax was something like 0.7988 :yes: (Helmut's alarm bell ringing).


Ein Taucher der nicht taucht taugt nichts. (german wordplay)

Regards,

Detlew

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,654 posts in 4,992 threads, 1,571 registered users;
178 visitors (0 registered, 178 guests [including 20 identified bots]).
Forum time: 12:48 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

“Data! Data! Data!” he cried impatiently.
“I can’t make bricks without clay!”    Arthur Conan Doyle

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