A wild guess [Surveys]

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2014-10-24 00:47 (3854 d 09:38 ago) – Posting: # 13784
Views: 11,574

Hi Hötzi,

A wild guess: I think you are fiddling around with WHO Technical Report Series, No. 937, annex 7 (Multisource BlahDeeBlah),
specifically you might be looking at section 6.3.2: "If the bioequivalence study was performed with the appropriate number of subjects but bioequivalence cannot be demonstrated because of a larger than expected random variation or a relative difference, an add-on subject study can be performed using not less than half the number of subjects in the initial study, provided this eventuality was anticipated and provided for in the study protocol."
as well as 6.11.3: "the total sample size of the initial bioequivalence study is not less than 20 (n = 10/group) or pooled sample size of the initial and add-on subject studies is not less than 30;"

-which lend from the PMDA guidelines section 2.5.
In a nutshell you are trying to figure out how the overall alpha behaves for various scenarios, incl. adjusted alphas, anticipated to comply with the Japanese add-on recommendations.

Pass or fail!
ElMaestro

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,668 registered users;
88 visitors (0 registered, 88 guests [including 44 identified bots]).
Forum time: 10:26 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

No matter what side of the argument you are on,
you always find people on your side
that you wish were on the other.    Thomas Berger

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