Strange result [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by jag009  – NJ, 2019-03-01 17:44 (781 d 08:21 ago) – Posting: # 19983
Views: 3,957

Hi Helmut!

» Was the study performed for Health Canada? In the 1989 draft 80–120% (untransformed data) were recommended and changed to 80–125% (log-transformed) in 1991.
» Then the study would have passed again cause –18.33% > –20% and –6.36% < +20%. However, the problem with the PE persists cause 100(–0.1833 + (–0.0636)) / 2 = –12.35% ≠ –6.14%. I don’t get it.

That I do not know (if it's for Canada) but it was a us study w US products. But your suggestion about Canada using non-transformed make sense(?) Can you tell me (or pt to me) about the Canadian guidance 89?

Thanks
J

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
21,419 posts in 4,475 threads, 1,510 registered users;
online 13 (0 registered, 13 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time: Wednesday 03:06 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

In the Middles Ages the lingua franca of science was Latin.
Nowadays the language of science is bad English.    Anonymous

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