Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

Relationship between calculated 90% CI and sign. treatment effect in BE [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by GM – India, 2017-03-29 14:11 (2951 d 21:38 ago) – Posting: # 17202
Views: 10,023

Hi David,

❝ The problem might be on the estimate statement. If the 90% CI is significantly different from 1, then the p-value for "formulation" should also be significant at the 10% significance level. Maybe you're using a different denominator than expected...

❝

❝ It would be easier if you post the full glm code.

Here is the code used for my analysis.

Proc GLM data=logdata;
   class Sequence Subject Period Form Cohort;
   model Log(Param) = Sequence Period Form Cohort Form*Cohort Subject(Sequence*Cohort)/ SS3;
   output out=outlier rstudent=student;
   test h=Sequence e=Subject(Sequence*Cohort) / htype=3 etype=3;
   lsmeans Form / pdiff CL alpha=0.10;
   estimate 'A VS B' Form 1 -1;
run;

I got the values for CI is 77.27-98.78 (doesn't contain 100%) and p-value of treatment effect is 0.0709 (not significant at the 5% level).

My observation is that when removing the Form*Cohort term from the model, treatment effect is significant @5% level of significance.

My question is that the terms which are used in the model are sufficient or not...? and if it is correct, why p-value of treatment effect is not significant...?

Thanks,
GM.

Complete thread:

• Relationship between calculated 90% CI and sign. treatment effect in BE GM 2017-03-27 19:40 [General Sta­tis­tics] 
  • 1–2α CI and TOST at α 0.05 Helmut 2017-03-27 23:47
    • 1–2α CI and TOST at α 0.05 GM 2017-03-28 06:50
      • 1–2α CI and TOST at α 0.05 DavidManteigas 2017-03-28 11:48
        • 1–2α CI and TOST at α 0.05 ElMaestro 2017-03-28 13:12
          • alpha TOST is not alpha 2-sided d_labes 2017-03-28 15:12
            • Interesting! ElMaestro 2017-03-28 21:10
              • Google has the answer d_labes 2017-03-29 08:20
              • Interesting! DavidManteigas 2017-03-29 11:16
                • Interesting! ElMaestro 2017-03-29 11:20
                  • Interesting! DavidManteigas 2017-03-29 12:28
                    • 95% CI for a test on difference d_labes 2017-03-29 14:24
                    • Interesting! GM 2017-03-29 20:06
                      • Interesting! nobody 2017-03-30 08:24
        • Relationship between calculated 90% CI and sign. treatment effect in BEGM 2017-03-29 12:11
          • Relationship between calculated 90% CI and sign. treatment effect in BE DavidManteigas 2017-03-29 12:30