Confusing [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2019-03-02 15:37 (1178 d 05:44 ago) – Posting: # 19985
Views: 4,608

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 🖖 [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

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

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,092 posts in 4,630 threads, 1,567 registered users;
online 11 (0 registered, 11 guests [including 9 identified bots]).
Forum time: Monday 22:21 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

There is no adequate defense, except stupidity,
against the impact of a new idea.    Percy Williams Bridgman

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