Baseline correction vs non-baseline correction [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Relaxation  – Germany, 2015-09-18 12:25 (3136 d 22:25 ago) – Posting: # 15428
Views: 18,865

Hi to everybody.

❝ I don't think that this is a stupid question at all. I've always wondered that. When you ask for both results but says that only the corrected should be considered in BE determination, then why present both??


I think a possible explanation for requiring both data sets (presented) may also be that there seems to be a lot of "errors" during evaluations.
I haven't searched for that, but thinking about the maybe last four publications/reports I saw dealing with a baseline and BE: all of them naturally claimed the use of baseline corrected data.
But in reality none of them did.

Some of them clearly stated the erronous way of calculation and presented data for corrected and uncorrected concentrations, that were not plausible, if you knew where to look at (meaning: if the quotient of means (arithmetic, because who would present geometric ones for a PK parameter ;-)) is 0.6, but the point estimate is a 0.9, well...
So there might be just some misunderstandings.

Some of them "forgot" to present all data (even down to give the point estimates/CI and some nice graphs on the maximum time scale only) and described the evaluation in a lot of words with little content.

No way to separate misconduct from unintentional failure here, but the best way to check that is by having both data sets available, so that may be a reason to ask for presentation of both?

Best regards,

Steven.

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,988 posts in 4,825 threads, 1,658 registered users;
109 visitors (0 registered, 109 guests [including 4 identified bots]).
Forum time: 10:51 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The whole purpose of education is
to turn mirrors into windows.    Sydney J. Harris

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