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

posted by bebac_fan – US, 2018-03-29 15:46 (2514 d 14:43 ago) – Posting: # 18614
Views: 11,209

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:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,380 posts in 4,914 threads, 1,665 registered users;
46 visitors (0 registered, 46 guests [including 9 identified bots]).
Forum time: 05:30 CET (Europe/Vienna)

When people learn no tools of judgment
and merely follow their hopes,
the seeds of political manipulation are sown.    Stephen Jay Gould

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