Leads to a (pseudo-) period effect ? [Bioanalytics]

posted by nobody – 2019-09-19 16:21 (374 d 04:15 ago) – Posting: # 20623
Views: 3,637

Dear all

I think you should define which effects (random, i.e. variability by chance or systematic, i.e. bias due to e.g. degrading analytical performance, stock solution etc.) you assume and which of these you can rule out by looking at results for QCs, comparing calibration functions etc. That is what all the quality control for your method is done for.

Without that defined it's hard to jump to conclusions regarding the concentrations you determine, let alone the pk parameters you calculate from these.

If the day-to-day performance of your analytical method is that bad, I wouldn't do any volunteer samples, but go back to the lab and improve your method. No doubt, the least variability/bias will be introduced by the setup Helmut lined out. But I don't think that a good analytical method and a good analytical chemist can't handle the exception from this rule (if necessary and justified)...

Kindest regards, nobody

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
21,079 posts in 4,396 threads, 1,468 registered users;
online 4 (0 registered, 4 guests [including 1 identified bots]).
Forum time: Sunday 20:37 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Politicians use statistics like drunkards use lampposts:
not for illumination, but for support.    attributed to Hans Kuhn

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