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

posted by nobody – 2019-09-19 16:21  – Posting: # 20623
Views: 1,230

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
 Mix view
Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum |  Admin contact
19,983 posts in 4,228 threads, 1,373 registered users;
online 12 (0 registered, 12 guests [including 6 identified bots]).
Forum time (Europe/Vienna): 15:04 CET

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems
is just as dumb as the next guy.    Richard Feynman

The BIOEQUIVALENCE / BIOAVAILABILITY FORUM is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5