It is, it is! [Power / Sample Size]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2020-05-04 14:07 (836 d 07:07 ago) – Posting: # 21397
Views: 6,952

» I believe it must be this assessment report.:
» "the acceptance criteria for Cmax was widened to the acceptance range of 72.83-137.31%",

Almost my dear Dr Watson!
It’s the first study; results on page 7:
“… within-reference intra-subject CV of ln-transformed Cmax > 30% (42.6%), hence Cmax limits were widen[ed] to 73.31–136.42% using scaled-average-bioequivalence.”

library(PowerTOST)
identical(42.6 / 100, round(100 * CVwRfromU(136.42 / 100), 1))
[1] TRUE


Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖 [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

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

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,305 posts in 4,668 threads, 1,587 registered users;
online 12 (0 registered, 12 guests [including 3 identified bots]).
Forum time: Thursday 21:14 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

On two occasions I have been asked,—“Pray, Mr. Babbage,
if you put into the machine wrong figures,…
will the right answers come out?”
 …
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas
that could provoke such a question.    Charles Babbage

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