Log in
RegisterCI inclusion ≠ TOST [BE/BA News]
Haha,
d_labes, you beat me to it, I was going to ask a similar question.
If I am getting it right this isn't about whether your product passes the test for BE or not, it is purely a matter relating to what you call it. Since semantics is now of such importance, I believe PowerTOST needs to be renamed.
Now someone kindly define robust and robustness for me so that I understand it. And please tell me how to use that definition to make a simulation robust enough that it convinces WHO
Or more generally, if I want to present an argument to a WHO regulator (not a simulation but just an argument which may or may not be based on siumulation) in which way will I know away to make my argument robust?
❝ if the CI inclusion rule is really something different than TOST why do we calculate power / samplesize based on TOST 
.
d_labes, you beat me to it, I was going to ask a similar question.
If I am getting it right this isn't about whether your product passes the test for BE or not, it is purely a matter relating to what you call it. Since semantics is now of such importance, I believe PowerTOST needs to be renamed.
Now someone kindly define robust and robustness for me so that I understand it. And please tell me how to use that definition to make a simulation robust enough that it convinces WHO
Or more generally, if I want to present an argument to a WHO regulator (not a simulation but just an argument which may or may not be based on siumulation) in which way will I know away to make my argument robust?
—
Pass or fail!
ElMaestro
Pass or fail!
ElMaestro
Complete thread:
- WHO frequent deficiencies in protocols and reports Ohlbe 2020-12-04 12:04
![[Mix]](https://static.bebac.at/img/mix.png "open in Mix view")
- WHO frequent deficiencies in protocols and reports ElMaestro 2020-12-04 14:10
- CI inclusion ≠ TOST Helmut 2020-12-04 20:30
- CI inclusion ≠ TOST d_labes 2020-12-05 16:19
- CI inclusion ≠ TOSTElMaestro 2020-12-05 16:49
- CI inclusion ≠ TOST d_labes 2020-12-07 11:39
- CI inclusion ≠ TOST Helmut 2020-12-06 22:09
- CI inclusion operationally identical to TOST d_labes 2020-12-07 11:11
- WHO lamenting about terminology? Helmut 2020-12-07 13:02
- WHO lamenting about terminology? ElMaestro 2020-12-07 14:54
- WHO lamenting about terminology? d_labes 2020-12-07 15:35
- WHO lamenting about terminology? Helmut 2020-12-07 13:02
- CI inclusion operationally identical to TOST d_labes 2020-12-07 11:11
- CI inclusion ≠ TOSTElMaestro 2020-12-05 16:49
- CI inclusion ≠ TOST d_labes 2020-12-05 16:19
- CI inclusion ≠ TOST Helmut 2020-12-04 20:30
- WHO frequent deficiencies in protocols and reports Helmut 2020-12-22 19:00
- "obtain balanced groups" vs randomisation ElMaestro 2020-12-23 08:12
- WHO frequent deficiencies in protocols and reports ElMaestro 2020-12-04 14:10
Ing. Helmut Schütz