"normal" GMR setting [Power / Sample Size]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2017-12-28 19:57 (2333 d 19:07 ago) – Posting: # 18117
Views: 33,485

Dear Helmut,

❝ ...Taking into account that the analytical method used for measuring the content of test- and reference-batches has limited accuracy/precision (2.5% is excellent!) and the method is not validated for the reference (you can ask the innovator for a CoA but never ever will get it) 0.95 might be “normal” ...


"Normal" is a question one could debate for hours, probably ending in a flame war :-D.
For me 0.95 or 1/0.95 is as "normal" like setting alpha = 0.05.
It's a convention to be used if nothing specific about the GMR is known. Nothing more.
And it seemed mostly to work over the years I have observed the use of this setting.
Of course it is not a natural constant.

Clinically relevant difference (aka GMR in bioequivalence studies): That which is used to justify the sample size but will be claimed to have been used to find it.
Stephen Senn


❝ ... but IMHO, optimistic even if you measure a content of 100% for both T and R. Given that power is most sensitive to the GMR I question the usefulness of 0.95.


Any other suggestion instead of 0.95 :confused:

Regards,

Detlew

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,029 posts in 4,834 threads, 1,644 registered users;
20 visitors (0 registered, 20 guests [including 6 identified bots]).
Forum time: 16:05 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

We must be careful not to confuse data with the abstractions
we use to analyze them.    William James

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