Significant digits or not significant digits ... [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2008-03-27 11:10 (5727 d 10:33 ago) – Posting: # 1726
Views: 7,765

... thats the question (Hamlet).

Dear HS,

thanks for lighten me a candle :flower: .
Most of your reasoning meets my feeling about this topic.

But some minor comments and questions for clarifying:

❝ However, I would always opt for significant digits - not decimal places.

This is very resonable regarding your reasoning that follows in your post.
But I have seen almost always constant decimal places (mostly 2-3) in the result from analysts.
May be this is because they all use M$-EXCEL :-( .

Have you convinced your analysts in using significant digits?
Or is the discrepancy to the analytical report not an issue?

❝ For many analytical methods even rounding to two significant digits would be sufficient – but I would guess everybody would start screaming then ...

Thats a pity, but "The customer is king".

❝ I do rounding of analytical data to three significant figures ...

Am I right in assuming that you use the rounded values for further processing (PK analysis)?
Or only for reporting the values in the study report?
What about 3 significant digits if LLOQ is given by the analyst with 2 decimals but only 2 significant digits (f.i. 0.88 nano/whatever)?

❝ Cmax… three significant figures; AUC as an integrated parameter to four significant figures…

:confused: AUC (roughly spoken summed conc. multiplied by time ...) gains precision in comparision to Cmax? I had expected the contrary.
Again the question: Rounded values for further processing (statistical analysis of bioequivalence) ?



Complete thread:

UA Flag
 Admin contact
22,811 posts in 4,783 threads, 1,643 registered users;
28 visitors (0 registered, 28 guests [including 5 identified bots]).
Forum time: 21:44 CET (Europe/Vienna)

Nothing shocks me. I’m a scientist.    Harrison Ford (as Indiana Jones)

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