Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

Dear D. Labes,

Thank you for your insightful comments. Indeed, when we were coding this part (sample size estimation), Hsin-ya and I already had arguments about this. The argument was whether we should put all these side by side. However, we did not discuss the naive users to use bear at that moment. Hsin-ya was against to put all these together. The reason was they might confuse users. It doesn't make any sense to put all these different things together. However, I didn't think it might confuse users at that moment. Of course, I didn't take naive users into consideration since the user would be asked to enter intra-/inter-subject CVs before showing all estimated results on screen. Then the user must know what he/she is trying to do. To do so is that I just try to make bear as simple as possible. Therefore, we will separate the sample size estimation of the parallel study from the crossovers (and replicates) in the next version. Hsin-ya is very happy about this.

❝ the study, as usual ) we choose of course the parallel group design.

I estimated the cost based on your proposed study too. I found the cost for sample analysis be less with the parallel (36's data sets) when it was compared to the 2x2x2 crossover (40's data sets). However, the parallel will need to recruit 18 more subjects than the crossover. In Taiwan, the parallel study may not cost less than the 2x2x2 crossover based on your proposed study. This can one of reasons misleading me to code bear in this way, I guess.