Imbalanced cross-overs [Study Per­for­mance]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2014-06-06 16:47 (3610 d 23:56 ago) – Posting: # 13038
Views: 16,663

Hi Khaoula,

❝ […] we collected the results of 15 subjects and we analyzed Kinetica without protocol for the management of dropouts


[image]We recently have submitted a paper to the AAPS J (which currently is under review). It seems that Kinetica is not able to correctly deal with imbalanced studies. I strongly suggest to use another soft­ware (we got correct results in R, Phoenix/WinNonlin, EquivTest/PK, and SAS).

❝ we had abberants results: for Cmax CV = 0,03 % for hight variable drug …


I don’t understand what you mean here. The limit for HVDs/HVDPs is 30% CV of the reference obtained in a replicate design. CVintra from a 2×2 serves only as a hint of a highly variable reference (since pooled from CVWR and CVWT).

❝ power: 50% …


A posteriori (aka post-hoc) power is irrelevant in BE. Stop calculating it.
Either the study passes, or not.

❝ with subject effect and subject/sequence effect


Subject effects are normal in a cross-over. It tells you that subjects differ – well, they should…

❝ […] the exclusion of subject N 15 have impact in the result of the study?


If evaluated by Kinetica, yes. :-(

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
22,993 posts in 4,828 threads, 1,653 registered users;
123 visitors (0 registered, 123 guests [including 9 identified bots]).
Forum time: 16:43 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Never never never never use Excel.
Not even for calculation of arithmetic means.    Martin Wolfsegger

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