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

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2018-03-29 01:03 (2271 d 12:07 ago) – Posting: # 18610
Views: 10,390

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
23,056 posts in 4,840 threads, 1,641 registered users;
180 visitors (1 registered, 179 guests [including 154 identified bots]).
Forum time: 13:11 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

My definition of an expert in any field
is a person who knows enough
about what’s really going on
to be scared.    Phillip J. Plauger

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