Nope [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by nobody – 2017-11-14 09:11 (1963 d 19:45 ago) – Posting: # 17978
Views: 7,871

IANAL, but I think what San-Diego-man is proposing is to calculate BE-outcome (pass/fail) after stage 1 and compare it to BE-outcome after the (unnecessary) second stage for, let's say, 1 gazillion of studies and see if there is a meaningful difference.

Isn't this a special example of the more general "forced BE" theme in one-stage designs?

Kindest regards, nobody

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,559 posts in 4,725 threads, 1,607 registered users;
14 visitors (0 registered, 14 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time: 05:57 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The penalty for scientific irrelevance is, of course,
that the statistician’s work is ignored by the scientific community.    George E.P. Box

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