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

posted by bebac_fan – US, 2018-03-29 15:46 (2656 d 19:18 ago) – Posting: # 18614
Views: 11,821

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
23,427 posts in 4,929 threads, 1,681 registered users;
49 visitors (0 registered, 49 guests [including 15 identified bots]).
Forum time: 11:04 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

No matter what side of the argument you are on,
you always find people on your side
that you wish were on the other.    Thomas Berger

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