one-sided / two-sided [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2019-03-04 01:20 (1254 d 19:16 ago) – Posting: # 19996
Views: 3,801

Hi Ohlbe,

» […] So even if you test the lower limit with a 5 % risk, and the higher limit with a 5 % risk, the overall risk still remains 5 % for the patients, not 10 %.

Correct.

@Akash: Maybe you were confused by one-sided superiority testing in phase III (which is performed at an α-level of 5%). In other words, if patients are treated with the originator’s product, there is a 5% risk that it does not perform better (more efficient and/or safer) than placebo.
If we would test for BE at the 2.5% level (95% CI) we would be overly strict and at the same time gain absolutely nothing in terms of the patient’s risk.

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
22,289 posts in 4,666 threads, 1,585 registered users;
online 7 (0 registered, 7 guests [including 6 identified bots]).
Forum time: Tuesday 21:36 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The existing scientific concepts cover always only
a very limited part of reality,
and the other part that has not yet
been understood is infinite.    Werner Heisenberg

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