Deficiencies [Power / Sample Size]

posted by Relaxation  – Germany, 2018-02-02 12:12 (2360 d 01:34 ago) – Posting: # 18331
Views: 20,831

Dear All.

Ignoring the risk that I may got it totally wrong, but from my experience (as a non-statistician :cool:) another phenomenon of doublethink may fit to

❝ Point 2. In the light of the combination of two BE statements (tablet vs. reference or capsule vs. reference) this is combination with OR. If, and only if a global statement is here appropriate. IMHO here both hypotheses are standing for it's own.

In current discussions on this topic the general opinion around here is quite clear: testing more than one option vs. Reference is multiple testing because you have "more than one shot"  adjust the ALPHA.
On the other hand, in reality more often than not, sponsors will then simply conduct two studies. I was never brave enough to comment, that this would be "more than one shoot", too, and we should adjust the ALPHA in each study. :surprised:

But seriously, why should testing alternatives in one study require a punishment and testing in seperate studies not. Because I pay my fee in doubled overhead study costs? Or because I don't have to tell anybody of the "other study" during application :confused:?

Best regards,


Complete thread:

UA Flag
 Admin contact
23,112 posts in 4,858 threads, 1,644 registered users;
93 visitors (0 registered, 93 guests [including 11 identified bots]).
Forum time: 14:46 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Statistics means you never have to say you’re certain.    David L. Streiner

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