Bad science [Study As­sess­ment]

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2013-07-28 14:43 (4719 d 03:15 ago) – Posting: # 11084
Views: 25,295

Hi Sam,

CV of Cmax in the pilot was lower than CV of AUCt.
This is almost never the true case. My guess is the pilot trial gave you the wrong impression of the product performance; the two products are not equivalent as evident by the last pivotal trial.

Pass or fail!
ElMaestro

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,656 posts in 4,994 threads, 1,570 registered users;
233 visitors (0 registered, 233 guests [including 16 identified bots]).
Forum time: 17:58 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Most scientists today are devoid of ideas, full of fear, intent on
producing some paltry result so that they can add to the flood
of inane papers that now constitutes “scientific progress”
in many areas.    Paul Feyerabend

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