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

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2019-09-19 16:15 (324 d 12:34 ago) – Posting: # 20622
Views: 3,661

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
20,984 posts in 4,374 threads, 1,460 registered users;
online 15 (0 registered, 15 guests [including 12 identified bots]).
Forum time: Sunday 04:50 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The interpretation of facts in a certain way
stimulates other scientists’ thoughts.    Róbert Bárány

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