"normal" GMR setting [Power / Sample Size]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2017-12-28 18:57 (1064 d 08:44 ago) – Posting: # 18117
Views: 27,462

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
21,213 posts in 4,426 threads, 1,483 registered users;
online 13 (1 registered, 12 guests [including 8 identified bots]).
Forum time: Friday 03:42 CET (Europe/Vienna)

Biostatistician. One who has neither the intellect for mathematics
nor the commitment for medicine but likes to dabble in both.    Stephen Senn

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