"normal" GMR setting [Power / Sample Size]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2017-12-28 18:57 (1361 d 08:22 ago) – Posting: # 18117
Views: 30,607

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:

Activity
 Admin contact
21,691 posts in 4,534 threads, 1,541 registered users;
online 6 (0 registered, 6 guests [including 6 identified bots]).
Forum time: Monday 04:20 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

They were “so intent of making everything numerical”
that they frequently missed seeing
what was there to be seen.    Barbara McClintock

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