Forget Westlake’s symmetrical CI [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2015-01-06 15:38 (3819 d 19:54 ago) – Posting: # 14225
Views: 7,408

Hi Hötzi,

sum up to 0.1 and

the limits of the CI are symmetrical around 1.

The patient’s risk is maintained and their physicians are less confused.


I love it, especially the middle one. It just does not strike me as being connected to the real world in any meaningful way :-D:-D:-D
Quite possible it made sense to somebody. At some point. Perhaps. Or maybe not.

I wonder what the figures will look like for a drug which proves to be BE but with 1.00 not part of the conventional 90% CI?

Pass or fail!
ElMaestro

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,673 registered users;
58 visitors (0 registered, 58 guests [including 5 identified bots]).
Forum time: 12:32 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