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

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2019-09-19 14:15 (526 d 07:51 ago) – Posting: # 20622
Views: 4,648

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

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

 Admin contact
21,357 posts in 4,459 threads, 1,492 registered users;
online 6 (0 registered, 6 guests [including 3 identified bots]).
Forum time: Friday 22:07 UTC (Europe/Vienna)

Those who make no mistakes are making the biggest mistakes of all 
they are attempting nothing new.    Anthony de Mello

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