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

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2018-03-28 23:03 (1308 d 05:43 ago) – Posting: # 18610
Views: 8,821

Hi bf,

» I was using the 100/112/125 example...

there are two things in this:
  1. In some cases the usual 80.00%-125.00% criterion may not be optimal and in those cases alternatives must be sought.
  2. I am not aware of any problem of any kind, which has practical relevance and which can be solved by imposing a mandatory span for the CI across the 100% mark.
The example you mention appears very hypothetical, doesn't it?
If it existed that way then you could definbitely do a Finney bioassay to derive relative potency and a CI of the same. Now that's a horse of another color.:-D:-D

Pass or fail!
ElMaestro

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
21,758 posts in 4,550 threads, 1,544 registered users;
online 8 (0 registered, 8 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time: Wednesday 04:46 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

There ain’t no rules around here!
We’re trying to accomplish something!    Thomas Alva Edison

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