Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

3rd, 4th opinion [RSABE / ABEL]

posted by jag009  – NJ, 2013-04-05 17:41 (4831 d 13:15 ago) – Posting: # 10354
Views: 11,856

Thank you SAS Guru

Glad to know that I am not the insane one. I can do the Ilat part of the code
Question...

❝ RR=R1-R2;

❝ * uncomment next line to get the CRO results;

❝ * if seq=2 then RR=-RR;

»...

❝ You can obtain the results of the CRO if you uncomment the statement in red above. It seems that the use of the progesterone code without considering the different numbering of the sequences has lead to such a calculation.

❝ By luck this contrast doesn't change the mse because nobody will challenge you defining R-R as R2-R1 instead of the usual R1-R2.

The CRO's sequence assignment(I added the subscripts 1&2 here just for clarity):
#1=B₁AB₂
#2=AB₁B₂
#3=B₁B₂A

Why swap RR as -RR for sequence 2 if the logistic seems to indicate B₁ is the 1st value and B₂ is the 2nd value? It's 9AM here in US so I am not zipping EtOH.

Granted that the study was a dud and the outcome was not affected by that additional line of code in the SAS code...

Thanks
John

Complete thread:

• SAS Procedure on Partial Replicate (TRR) Study Data jag009 2013-04-02 21:11 
  • Confusing… Helmut 2013-04-03 13:42
    • Confusing… jag009 2013-04-03 16:06
      • Confusing… Helmut 2013-04-03 21:49
        • Confusing… jag009 2013-04-03 23:01
          • Confusing… Helmut 2013-04-03 23:22
            • Confusing… jag009 2013-04-04 15:59
            • Confusing… jag009 2013-04-04 17:21
              • 2nd opinion Helmut 2013-04-05 01:01
                • 2nd opinion jag009 2013-04-05 15:24
              • 3rd, 4th opinion d_labes 2013-04-05 11:04
                • 3rd, 4th opinionjag009 2013-04-05 15:41
                  • Beer swaped d_labes 2013-04-05 16:09
                    • Beer swaped jag009 2013-04-05 17:18