Upper 90% CL 0.17% > U [Study As­sess­ment]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2018-04-29 23:46 (1570 d 18:30 ago) – Posting: # 18743
Views: 2,813

Hi balakotu,

please give complete information: Sample size (if unbalanced: number of subjects per sequences), observed GMR, and 90% CI. Was it a 4-period (TRTR|RTRT) or a 3-period (TRT|RTR) design? Target power and GMR assumed in study planning?

» […] relaxed 90% Confidence Intervals

<nitpick>

You mean: Expanded (acceptance) limits

</nitpick>

» Is there any way to justify Europe regulatory authority(ies) to accept this study data?

Are you talking about ‘bending the rules’ and convince them accepting it? Chances are pretty low (patient’s risk >0.05). Furthermore, some European statisticians are already aware of the potential inflation of Type I Error in reference-scaling, which might be the case with your CVwR of 38.9%.

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖 [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,305 posts in 4,668 threads, 1,587 registered users;
online 7 (1 registered, 6 guests [including 4 identified bots]).
Forum time: Wednesday 18:17 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

There is no point in being precise when you don’t know
what you’re talking about.    attributed to John Tukey

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