Flawed evaluation accepted [RSABE / ABEL]

posted by Mikalai  – Belarus, 2020-01-31 12:40 (241 d 08:10 ago) – Posting: # 21117
Views: 12,669

Dear Helmut,

I would like to stress out again that this decision tree has been used in multiple accepted BE studies. The tree is used not only by Indian CROs but CROs from developed countries. Cannot say more because it is a bit confidential. And again no complaints from regulators at all; otherwise, it would not be used

Regards


Why is it flawed?
They passed bioequivalence with the first step and did not go to the second one. It may be risky according to your approach but they were lucky enough. There is no TIE inflation in their study as I understand.
What is wrong in relation to TIE inflation?

Best regards


Edit: Merged with a later (now deleted) post. You can edit your posts for 24 hours. [Helmut]

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
21,084 posts in 4,398 threads, 1,468 registered users;
online 2 (0 registered, 2 guests [including 2 identified bots]).
Forum time: Monday 21:51 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

A central lesson of science is that to understand complex issues
(or even simple ones), we must try to free our minds of dogma and
to guarantee the freedom to publish, to contradict, and to experiment.
Arguments from authority are unacceptable.    Carl Sagan

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