[Opinion] Should the 90% CI for GMR be required to encompass 1 [RSABE / ABEL]

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2018-03-28 19:07 (1305 d 09:28 ago) – Posting: # 18602
Views: 8,833

Hi bfan,

» I am a new poster, long time lurker. I am a clinical pharmacologist who is crazy (but not formally trained) about statistics.

I like that :-D:-D

The width of the confidence interval is generally sample size dependent. Whether or not 100% is included in your CI may have absolutely nothing to do with the performance of the two products, or the existence of a clinically relevant difference, but which may have everything to do with your chosen sample size.
If we implement the rule like you propose we will therefor be punishing those sponsors who have high sample sizes. Think about it - this isn't what anyone wants to do.

At the end of the day you know the two products are different (although they might not be different by any clinically meaningful margin). The fact that any two products are different is one you can generally prove by increasing the sample size until the CI no longer includes 100%.:-)

Pass or fail!
ElMaestro

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
21,753 posts in 4,548 threads, 1,544 registered users;
online 3 (0 registered, 3 guests [including 1 identified bots]).
Forum time: Sunday 04:35 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