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

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2019-02-20 14:12  – Posting: # 19938
Views: 3,728

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:

Activity
 Admin contact
20,144 posts in 4,248 threads, 1,385 registered users;
online 14 (0 registered, 14 guests [including 4 identified bots]).
Forum time (Europe/Vienna): 01:48 CET

A little Learning is a dang’rous Thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring:
There shallow Draughts intoxicate the Brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.    Alexander Pope

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