[Opinion] Should the 90% CI for GMR be required to encompass 1 [RSABE / ABEL]

posted by bebac_fan – US, 2018-03-29 15:46 (3015 d 06:11 ago) – Posting: # 18614
Views: 14,432

Hi Helmut,

Thank you for validating the issue (sort of?). I am having fun with this theoretical exercise.

Yes I am an R fanatic. I think I'm going to play with power.NTID and add a criteria that the GMR CI falls through 1.00.

I will report back.

Cheers,
BF


Edit: Full quote removed. Please delete everything from the text of the original poster which is not necessary in understanding your answer; see also this post #5[Helmut]

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,656 posts in 4,994 threads, 1,571 registered users;
316 visitors (0 registered, 316 guests [including 127 identified bots]).
Forum time: 21:58 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

It requires a very unusual mind
to undertake the analysis of the obvious.    Alfred North Whitehead

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