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

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2018-03-28 21:07 (2306 d 15:31 ago) – Posting: # 18602
Views: 10,565

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:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,112 posts in 4,858 threads, 1,644 registered users;
59 visitors (0 registered, 59 guests [including 14 identified bots]).
Forum time: 12:39 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

It’s always fun to have your models validated,
but is way more fun to have them trashed.
Finding out you are completely wrong
is a great part of science.    G. Randall Gladstone

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