Hey wait a moment.... [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2018-06-27 08:29 (973 d 22:15 ago) – Posting: # 18972
Views: 9,233

Good morning Hötzi,

» Good point – I missed that! In the past I did not adjust because only one will be marketed (i.e., the entire patient’s risk lies with this product). However, some regulatory statisticians (you know, coffee break chats) seem to be more strict because one gets two chances of passing. Too lazy to crawl the supplementary material of your paper about pilot studies: Is such a case covered?

Whose paper? :-D:-D:-D Some crackpot had one published paper and it covered the case of one product being tested in a pilot, then in a pivotal trial, depending on the figures. Rumours have it he is working on another manuscript dealing with scenarios like the one in this thread and that reviewers are way too tough. But then again, you cannot always trust rumours. Only trust google and wikipedia. :-)


Hi all,

ok you'll think that I am nuts, but I think I will need to put it into reverse here:

Let us say both R1 and R2 are (truly) not BE. For simplicity think of them as products with the exact same properties even though they formally may be called something different. Since we are happy if we approve one of them, applying alpha=5% could inflate the type I error (approval of a non-BE product) if the true relative performances are around the acceptance borders.

We need that alpha correction. Sorry.


Edit: Two posts merged. [Helmut]

Pass or fail!
ElMaestro

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
21,355 posts in 4,458 threads, 1,493 registered users;
online 2 (0 registered, 2 guests [including 2 identified bots]).
Forum time: Thursday 05:45 CET (Europe/Vienna)

The rise of biometry in this 20th century,
like that of geometry in the 3rd century before Christ,
seems to mark out one of the great ages or critical periods
in the advance of the human understanding.    R.A. Fisher

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