Alternative CI for BE decision [Power / Sample Size]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2017-02-09 13:41  – Posting: # 17045
Views: 19,261

Hi ElMaestro,

» If someone reports a CI of 0.8456-1.0000 to me, then it might in actuality imply a 90% CI of 0.8456-0.98765 or whatever. Is that science?

As zizou noted above it is less informative than the conventional (shortest) CI – we only know that the GMR is <1 – and we can’t calculate the CV from the CI any more.

» Why not just go all the way and adjust all CI's so that they span across 1.0 like...what was his name... some statistician twenty-thirty years ago.... his name was Lester Hamsterballs or something...?

41 years ago. Westlake. Wilfred J. Westlake.

Took me ages to persuade Pharsight/Certara to remove it from the standard output of WinNonlin (available till v6.3).

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
20,780 posts in 4,351 threads, 1,444 registered users;
online 38 (2 registered, 36 guests [including 15 identified bots]).
Forum time: 14:10 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

All we know about the world teaches us that the effects of A and B
are always different—in some decimal place—for any A and B.
Thus asking “are the effects different?” is foolish.    John W. Tukey

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