Confusing [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2019-03-02 15:37 (725 d 05:38 ago) – Posting: # 19985
Views: 3,748

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

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

Complete thread:

 Admin contact
21,355 posts in 4,458 threads, 1,493 registered users;
online 3 (0 registered, 3 guests [including 1 identified bots]).
Forum time: Wednesday 21:15 CET (Europe/Vienna)

It is better to be wrong than to be vague.
In trial and error, the error is the true essential.    Freeman Dyson

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