Penalty for carelessness [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by mittyri – Russia, 2017-05-25 10:52 (2195 d 09:28 ago) – Posting: # 17412
Views: 27,919

Dear Helmut, Dear Beholder,


❝ ❝ Does any of our Russian members know whether the above was ever accepted? This section talks about giving in the report a justification for not performing such an analysis. Has anybody ever tried to give the justification already in the protocol? If yes, what happened? If no, why not?

I'd name the group effect as a 'penalty for carelessness'. After some hot discussions last week I understood that's what experts are waiting for since they do not want to dial back.
So some time ago (about 3 years ago) 'group' trend appeared in their mind. The experts asked after reports submission: group? group? group?
On the stage of request on report it was almost impossible to justify the model without groups. By the way now when this topic is very popular, the team who's developing the protocol should include the justification regarding absence of group effect in the model. Otherwise 'groupshot' is very likely.


❝ If Im not mistaken, you wrote something about such algorithm somewhere in forum but I could not find it.

Here you go

Edit: Changed to internal link; see also this post #7. [Helmut]

Kind regards,

Complete thread:

UA Flag
 Admin contact
22,616 posts in 4,740 threads, 1,610 registered users;
15 visitors (0 registered, 15 guests [including 8 identified bots]).
Forum time: 20:21 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics.
I can assure you mine are still greater.    Albert Einstein

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