‘Method C’ ⇒ risky [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2019-09-19 16:15 (487 d 02:38 ago) – Posting: # 20622
Views: 4,456

Hi Elena,

» This is our first experience in conducting such studies, so we are quite excited. :lookaround:

Keep in mind that it might also be the first experience for the experts of the agencies you are aiming at. Possibly they have heard about the skeptic attitudes of European assessors towards ‘Method C’. Consider ‘Method B’ instead. See the end of this post for a comparison of power. What will it help to have (maybe) two subject less in the second stage and a study which is not accepted? I warned you. :cool:

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
21,303 posts in 4,441 threads, 1,487 registered users;
online 8 (0 registered, 8 guests [including 5 identified bots]).
Forum time: Monday 17:54 CET (Europe/Vienna)

I believe there is no philosophical high-road in science,
with epistemological signposts. No, we are in a jungle
and find our way by trial and error,
building our road behind us as we proceed.    Max Born

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