Potvin C in the EU [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2013-04-16 19:40 (4017 d 21:44 ago) – Posting: # 10424
Views: 45,618

Dear all,

new experiences from an ongoing MRP. Two studies (first one in two groups due to logistic reasons), Method C (!), all metrics in both studies passed in stage 1 (>80% power in the interim, no α-adjustment = 90% CIs).

Studies’ models in stage 1:
  1. Fixed:  sequence, period, treatment, group, group × treatment
    Random: subject(sequence)

  2. Fixed:  sequence, period, treatment
    Random: subject(sequence)
Accepted by Germany (RMS); no comments from Austria, Denmark, Sweden, and The Netherlands. Spain:

“Statistical analysis should be GLM. Please justify. Please provide the NOL.”

OK, I will repeat the analyses with all fixed effects (sigh; identical CIs…). ;-)
BTW, does anybody know what “NOL” means?

P.S.: All metrics would have passed with αadj 0.0294 (Method B) as well. I did not report these results and interestingly surprisingly was not asked for them.

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
22,984 posts in 4,822 threads, 1,651 registered users;
46 visitors (0 registered, 46 guests [including 4 identified bots]).
Forum time: 17:24 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

You can’t fix by analysis
what you bungled by design.    Richard J. Light, Judith D. Singer, John B. Willett

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