2-Study Meta-analysis [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2010-04-12 17:03 (5911 d 07:50 ago) – Posting: # 5091
Views: 10,416

Dear Helmut!

❝ Interesting Section II.1.3:

A retrospective meta-analysis of only two studies originally intended to stand on their own is not expected to add any useful information. In parti­cu­lar, a meta-analysis cannot be used to reconcile the conflicting results of one positive and one inconclusive study.


THX for highlighting this. IMHO its not so very sound, not to say ... urrgh (cervix blocked to to keep a civil tongue :-D), especially if the study sizes differ to a greater extent.

Fortunately this is weaker formulated in the new BE guidance, text pointed to by earlybird, page 16: "Alternatively, when relevant, a combined analysis of all studies can be provided in addition to the individual study analyses. It is not acceptable to pool together studies which fail to demonstrate bioequivalence in the absence of a study that does."
Hopefully this overrules.

Regards,

Detlew

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,654 posts in 4,992 threads, 1,570 registered users;
135 visitors (0 registered, 135 guests [including 17 identified bots]).
Forum time: 00:54 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