one-sided / two-sided [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2019-03-04 01:20 (636 d 10:00 ago) – Posting: # 19996
Views: 3,072

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 🖖
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
21,216 posts in 4,427 threads, 1,481 registered users;
online 20 (2 registered, 18 guests [including 14 identified bots]).
Forum time: Sunday 11:21 CET (Europe/Vienna)

Half the harm that is done in this world
Is due to people who want to feel important.    T. S. Eliot

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