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

posted by bebac_fan – US, 2018-03-29 13:46 (1307 d 16:57 ago) – Posting: # 18614
Views: 8,507

Hi Helmut,

Thank you for validating the issue (sort of?). I am having fun with this theoretical exercise.

Yes I am an R fanatic. I think I'm going to play with power.NTID and add a criteria that the GMR CI falls through 1.00.

I will report back.

Cheers,
BF


Edit: Full quote removed. Please delete everything from the text of the original poster which is not necessary in understanding your answer; see also this post #5[Helmut]

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
21,758 posts in 4,550 threads, 1,544 registered users;
online 9 (0 registered, 9 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time: Wednesday 06:44 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