Strange result [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by jag009  – NJ, 2019-03-01 18:44 (2179 d 00:03 ago) – Posting: # 19983
Views: 6,622

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:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,381 posts in 4,914 threads, 1,663 registered users;
46 visitors (0 registered, 46 guests [including 9 identified bots]).
Forum time: 18:48 CET (Europe/Vienna)

Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones.
But a collection of facts is no more a science
than a heap of stones is a house.    Henri Poincaré

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