WHO lamenting about terminology? [BE/BA News]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2020-12-07 16:35 (1170 d 09:20 ago) – Posting: # 22124
Views: 3,512

Dear Helmut,

❝ Coming back to the WHO’s rant:

The calculation of the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the mean test/comparator ratio for the primary PK parameters should not be confused with the two one-sided t-tests employed to reject the null hypothesis of non-equivalence. The end result is the same, but these are not the same calculations.


❝ IMHO, they are just fed up reading “TOST” whilst the CI inclusion approach acc. to the GL was actually performed.


Totally correct to lament about that fact, I think. It should unequivocally described in the protocol or the SAP which calculations will be done :yes:. The CI approach will be the favorite I think. It is requested in all guidelines about BE studies, if I dont err.

Regards,

Detlew

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,899 posts in 4,806 threads, 1,652 registered users;
30 visitors (0 registered, 30 guests [including 8 identified bots]).
Forum time: 01:56 CET (Europe/Vienna)

Statistics is, or should be, about scientific investigation
and how to do it better, but many statisticians believe
it is a branch of mathematics.    George E.P. Box

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