CV 0.03%? [Study Per­for­mance]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2014-06-07 15:52 (4393 d 06:45 ago) – Posting: # 13041
Views: 22,744

Hi Khaoula,

❝ […] the drug is omeprazole, that is a HVDP (in bibliography I read a lot of bioequivalence stydy were CV > 30%)


Agree.

❝ […] CV C max of the study Was very low!!!!!!!!


The 0.03% you stated above are practically impossible. Even if you had only monozygotic multiples in your study (violating the “independence” of IID) there would still be variability of the bioanalytical method as a component of the residual variance. Exceptionally good methods still have a CV of ~2–3%. The lowest CVintra of Cmax I ever have seen was ~7% (more than two orders of magnitude higher than yours). Please check your calculations:

\(CV\% = 100\sqrt{e^{MSE}-1}\), where MSE is obtained from ANOVA/GLM of ln-transformed data.

Avoid Kinetica.

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
23,654 posts in 4,992 threads, 1,571 registered users;
163 visitors (0 registered, 163 guests [including 12 identified bots]).
Forum time: 22:38 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Scientists often have a naïve faith that
if only they could discover enough facts about a problem,
these facts would somehow arrange themselves
in a compelling and true solution.    Theodosius Dobzhansky

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