Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

Tasseography [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by Helmut  – Vienna, Austria, 2010-03-12 16:01 (5945 d 16:44 ago) – Posting: # 4909
Views: 6,631

Dear Dan!

❝ In Boonchai’s example there’s a limit in the clinical capacity. His expected sample size is 80 and he has only the option to start with 40. What do you think about a replicate design study? A replicate design study with 40 subjects will be better than a two way cross-over study with 80 subjects divided into two groups since you can claim the widened acceptance range for Cmax.

Yes, why not? Though we are a little bit in the business of reading tea leaves until Boonchai tells us more. From the sample size a HVD/HVDP is likely and more often than not C_max is the most critical metric. But the widened AR is not suitable is some regulations. Another problem is the drop-out rate and the higher blood-loss. It’s a pity that no method is available right now for a sequential replicate design.

—
Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! 
Helmut Schütz


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

Complete thread:

• large sample size boonchai_l 2010-03-11 08:04 
  • two groups (logistics) Helmut 2010-03-11 12:36
    • logistical limitations = opportunities? ElMaestro 2010-03-11 21:09
      • logistical limitations = opportunities? Dr_Dan 2010-03-12 09:04
        • Sequential design = opportunity (IMHO) Helmut 2010-03-12 12:21
          • Sequential design = opportunity (IMHO) Dr_Dan 2010-03-12 13:04
            • TasseographyHelmut 2010-03-12 15:01
              • sequential replicate design Dr_Dan 2010-03-15 11:21
                • sequential replicate design (reference?) Helmut 2010-03-15 15:37
    • two groups (logistics) boonchai_l 2010-03-16 12:25
      • two groups (logistics) ElMaestro 2010-03-18 18:21