Full-replicate design in two groups [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by mittyri – Russia, 2018-11-01 13:08 (1795 d 18:59 ago) – Posting: # 19514
Views: 2,026

Dear Mikalai,

❝ It has been suggested that we should change our statistical model to model II of FDA.

Sorry, but who is the author of suggestion?

❝ What risks, if any, carry on this model to our bioequivalence?

This approach looks strange to me. If you are basing on FDA models, why are you using FDA Model II and ignoring other criteria given in Progesterone Guidance?
See also similar question and Helmut's answer here

❝ Can additional factors in model artificially reduce our CV and push us out of the scaled approach to usual 125%-80% one (I am not a statistician, so my question may be statistically correct)?

Resulted CVintra can go up or down. There are many factors which can inflate on CVintra (widening it or squeezing)
Usually you won't see drastically changed CV, but I would not bet on that

❝ Should we change our usual 4-factor model?

Whenever possible: keep EMA ABEL clean!

Kind regards,

Complete thread:

UA Flag
 Admin contact
22,763 posts in 4,775 threads, 1,628 registered users;
16 visitors (0 registered, 16 guests [including 4 identified bots]).
Forum time: 09:08 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The object of statistics is information.
The objective of statistics is the understanding of information
contained in data.    Irwin and Marylees Miller

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