PowerTOST: CVfromCI -> CI.BE [Study As­sess­ment]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2019-02-20 15:12 (1977 d 21:05 ago) – Posting: # 19938
Views: 10,911

Dear Helmut,

❝ ...

❝ How to discover which method was used?

❝ Work backwards, i.e., see with which CV you can reproduce the reported results for each comparison.

res.1 <- CI.BE(pe=pe, CV=CV.1, n=n, design=des)

❝ res.2 <- CI.BE(pe=pe, CV=CV.2, n=n, design=eval)

❝ cat(paste0("\nBack-calculated 90% CI by",

❝     "\n  Pooled ANOVA           : ",
❝     sprintf("%.2f%%%s", 100*res.1[["lower"]], "\u2013"),
❝     sprintf("%.2f%%", 100*res.1[["upper"]]),
❝     "\n  Two-at-a-Time Principle: ",
❝     sprintf("%.2f%%%s", 100*res.2[["lower"]], "\u2013"),
❝     sprintf("%.2f%%", 100*res.2[["upper"]]), "\n"))


Back-calculated 90% CI by

❝   Pooled ANOVA           : 85.00%–106.18%
❝   Two-at-a-Time Principle: 85.00%–106.18%


IMHO this suggestion is an orouboros.
Calculating the CV from the CI and using this CV to calculate the CI will give you always the CI used in the starting step. Regardless of the design used in both steps.
As you has demonstrated with your calculations :cool:.

Regards,

Detlew

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,112 posts in 4,858 threads, 1,644 registered users;
65 visitors (0 registered, 65 guests [including 18 identified bots]).
Forum time: 13:17 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

It’s always fun to have your models validated,
but is way more fun to have them trashed.
Finding out you are completely wrong
is a great part of science.    G. Randall Gladstone

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