Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum • Leads to a (pseudo-) period effect ?

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

posted by dshah – India/United Kingdom, 2019-09-20 09:52 (1670 d 08:57 ago) – Posting: # 20629
Views: 5,799

Dear All!
Thanks for the discussion!

❝ Now you confused me (even reading Ravuri’s OP again did not help). If periods are analyzed in single, separate batches it should not matter in a crossover due to the randomization. Prerequisite: Always keep the order of the batches for all subjects p1 → p2 → …

❝

❝ What would not work:

A paired design.
❝
Periods split into different batches.

I believe that ultimately separate batches in a run is not an issue. Over here the calibration curve equation used will be the same. But when we are running P1 and P2 in different run (not batches), then definitely it could have direct impact on BE Out come.

Regards,
D Shah

Complete thread:

Crossover: samples of p1 and p2 in different batches? Ravuri sindhura 2019-09-18 19:16 [Bioanalytics]
- Crossover: samples of p1 and p2 in different batches? dshah 2019-09-19 09:16
  - Leads to a (pseudo-) period effect Helmut 2019-09-19 15:33
    - Leads to a (pseudo-) period effect ? Ohlbe 2019-09-19 15:50
      - Leads to a (pseudo-) period effect ? Helmut 2019-09-19 15:59
        
        Leads to a (pseudo-) period effect ? nobody 2019-09-19 16:21
        
        Almost entirely OT Helmut 2019-09-19 17:22
        
        Almost entirely OT nobody 2019-09-19 17:46
        
        Completely OT Helmut 2019-09-19 18:08
        
        Leads to a (pseudo-) period effect ?dshah 2019-09-20 07:52
        
        Leads to a (pseudo-) period effect ? nobody 2019-09-20 08:00
        Run ≠ batch? Helmut 2019-09-20 09:42
        
        Run ≠ batch Ohlbe 2019-09-20 10:37
        Run ≠ batch? dshah 2019-09-23 07:43
        
        Run ≠ batch? nobody 2019-09-23 08:36
    - Leads to a (pseudo-) period effect Ravuri sindhura 2019-09-23 13:04