Power at 1.20 [Software]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2010-09-28 20:57 (5320 d 19:03 ago) – Posting: # 5948
Views: 5,905

Dear J. Detlor!

❝ I believe weirddude specified a 20% difference, which could mean an expected ratio of 120%. With enough subjects, the technical requirements for BE could be demonstated, but I believe this is what is referred to as 'forcing' BE. Some would say a ratio of 120% suggests the formulations are not bioequivalent.


Yes, I’ve heard the term ‘forced BE’ also. If WeirdDude really talked about a ratio of 1.20 – well, let’s see whicht power we would get (24 subjects, usual settings, :blahblah:):
CV%   power
 5.5  0.8017
10    0.3932
20    0.1704
30    0.1180

Unless one has to deal with the ‘wonder-drug’ (CV 5.5 %), 24 subjects at a ratio of 1.20 are futile.

❝ To be specific, […]



Exactly.

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
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,670 registered users;
24 visitors (0 registered, 24 guests [including 0 identified bots]).
Forum time: 16:01 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The difference between a surrogate and a true endpoint
is like the difference between a cheque and cash.
You can get the cheque earlier but then,
of course, it might bounce.    Stephen Senn

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