Fixed effects rather than random effects [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2014-01-21 18:12 (4169 d 17:38 ago) – Posting: # 12220
Views: 4,817

Hello Erkin,

I agree with Helmut would also like to point out that I think the issue is not treated in the same fashion across all Europe. In some countries assessors don't give a rat's fart about it, possibly because they have no idea about what a fixed vs a random effect is, while in other countries the matter is of interest just because the guideline says effects must be fixed. I have not come a across a scientific justification for avoiding random effects in BE (yet keeping them in other analyses btw).

Pass or fail!
ElMaestro

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,673 registered users;
56 visitors (0 registered, 56 guests [including 10 identified bots]).
Forum time: 12:50 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Medical researches can be divided into two sorts:
those who think that meta is better and those
who believe that pooling is fooling.    Stephen Senn

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