Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

Hi Hötzi,

I must say I have some sympathy for this view from AGES. To me this proves that occasionally even Austrians say something meaningful...
The whole idea about 0.052 as a kind of clinically relevant limit which popped up in Potvin's paper is taken out of the clean blue Canadian air. If we want to control the type I error rate at 5% then my interpretation is we should mean 5% and this should not so much be a discussion of decimals or even the 0.05036 binomial limit at one million sims. In perspective: eu regulators want the CI's to be within 80.00% to 125.00% - four or five significant digits or two decimals? If the latter is the case then we could try to argue accordingly that 0.054999 is not inflation. Yuck

0.05 rules.