Confusing [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2019-03-02 15:37 (687 d 12:36 ago) – Posting: # 19985
Views: 3,672

Hi John,

» Here is the exact wordings from the table (if that makes any difference to what I posted). Note that the summary table also presented +/- Westlake 95% CI..
»
» Cmax(n=24):
» Detectable differences(%)=13.28

“Detectable difference” stinks of the FDA’s 80/20 rule (at least 80% post hoc power to detect a 20% difference). Was applied till 1992. IMHO, since 13.28% < 20%, Cmax failed.

» T/R Ratio=93.86%
» +/- Westlake 95% CI=20.12%

Why 95%? However, Westlake’s CI is an information sink (example). By fiddling around with the t-values his CI is always symmetric around 100%. He suspected that clinicians are not comfortable with a CI which is asymmetric (see this post). As a side effect the T/R-ratio should not be given.

» One sided t-test 90% CI:Lower limit= -18.33%, Upper Limit= -6.36%

Here’s the other way ’round. Should be 95%.

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
21,303 posts in 4,441 threads, 1,487 registered users;
online 8 (0 registered, 8 guests [including 3 identified bots]).
Forum time: Monday 04:13 CET (Europe/Vienna)

I believe there is no philosophical high-road in science,
with epistemological signposts. No, we are in a jungle
and find our way by trial and error,
building our road behind us as we proceed.    Max Born

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