Acceptable difference (BE history) [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2015-07-03 16:49 (4014 d 13:47 ago) – Posting: # 15035
Views: 10,244

Dear Detlew,

❝ ❝ critical dose drugs 90.0–112.0%).


❝ Although this is a bit of generous rounding to one decimal :cool:


I told Eric Ormsby at the last BioInternational conference (London, October 2008) that on the long run the mean of generic NTIDs will be \(\sqrt{0.900 \times 1.120} = 1.003992 \ldots\). IIRC he replied “We can stand that. 112% is just easier to remember.”
When discussions were hot in the mid-1980s (switching from untransformed to log-trans­formed data) we had a width of the acceptance range of 0.40 (80–120%) based on an acceptable Δ of 0.20:We all know which party won – leading to limits “which are easy to remember”. Yes, this was at the end the unbeatable argument.:-D

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,656 posts in 4,994 threads, 1,570 registered users;
270 visitors (0 registered, 270 guests [including 24 identified bots]).
Forum time: 06:37 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