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

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2018-03-28 23:03 (1594 d 22:18 ago) – Posting: # 18610
Views: 9,187

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:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,289 posts in 4,666 threads, 1,585 registered users;
online 3 (0 registered, 3 guests [including 3 identified bots]).
Forum time: Tuesday 21:22 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The existing scientific concepts cover always only
a very limited part of reality,
and the other part that has not yet
been understood is infinite.    Werner Heisenberg

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