one-sided / two-sided [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2019-03-04 02:20 (1932 d 02:44 ago) – Posting: # 19996
Views: 4,459

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 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [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
23,057 posts in 4,840 threads, 1,641 registered users;
139 visitors (0 registered, 139 guests [including 83 identified bots]).
Forum time: 06:04 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

If you tell the truth you don’t have to remember anything.    Mark Twain

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