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

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2019-02-20 14:12 (1192 d 04:40 ago) – Posting: # 19938
Views: 8,798

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:.



Complete thread:

UA Flag
 Admin contact
22,110 posts in 4,630 threads, 1,567 registered users;
online 7 (0 registered, 7 guests [including 5 identified bots]).
Forum time: Friday 19:52 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

We absolutely must leave room for doubt
or there is no progress and no learning.
There is no learning without having to pose a question.
And a question requires doubt.
People search for certainty.
But there is no certainty.    Richard Feynman

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