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

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2018-04-30 01:46 (1859 d 08:22 ago) – Posting: # 18743
Views: 2,901

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


You mean: Expanded (acceptance) limits


❝ 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 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz

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

Complete thread:

UA Flag
 Admin contact
22,616 posts in 4,740 threads, 1,611 registered users;
14 visitors (0 registered, 14 guests [including 6 identified bots]).
Forum time: 10:08 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Nerds don’t just happen to dress informally.
They do it too consistently.
Consciously or not, they dress informally
as a prophylactic measure against stupidity.    Paul Graham

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