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

posted by bebac_fan – US, 2018-03-29 15:46 (2076 d 18:16 ago) – Posting: # 18614
Views: 9,398

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.


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
 Admin contact
22,811 posts in 4,783 threads, 1,638 registered users;
26 visitors (0 registered, 26 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time: 09:02 CET (Europe/Vienna)

I have never in my life learned anything
from any man who agreed with me.    Dudley Field Malone

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