Log in
RegisterUse of 96.7% CI instead of 90% CI [Regulatives / Guidelines]
Hi pjs,
I have no actual idea, but I think some kind of multiplicity issue could have been the case here since they worked with a decreased alpha. Perhaps it was something with a semi-sequential design, multiple candidate formulations and/or interim picking of a final one for finalisation, or something along those lines?
❝ What could be the reason to use 96.7% CI (decreasing the patient risk ??? increasing the faith in product???)
❝
❝ and what justification would have been given.
I have no actual idea, but I think some kind of multiplicity issue could have been the case here since they worked with a decreased alpha. Perhaps it was something with a semi-sequential design, multiple candidate formulations and/or interim picking of a final one for finalisation, or something along those lines?
—
Pass or fail!
ElMaestro
Pass or fail!
ElMaestro
Complete thread:
- Use of 96.7% CI instead of 90% CI pjs 2015-07-08 17:07
![[Mix]](https://static.bebac.at/img/mix.png "open in Mix view")
- Use of 96.7% CI instead of 90% CIElMaestro 2015-07-08 17:29
- Bonferroni (three tests) Helmut 2015-07-09 00:43
- Bonferroni (three tests) pjs 2015-07-09 09:11
- Bonferroni (three tests) Helmut 2015-07-09 12:18
- Bonferroni (three tests) pjs 2015-07-09 09:11
Ing. Helmut Schütz