WHO lamenting about terminology? [BE/BA News]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2020-12-07 16:35 (719 d 16:33 ago) – Posting: # 22124
Views: 2,701

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
22,417 posts in 4,692 threads, 1,596 registered users;
11 visitors (0 registered, 11 guests [including 10 identified bots]).
Forum time: 09:09 CET (Europe/Vienna)

To know that we know what we know,
and to know that we do not know what we do not know,
that is true knowledge.    Nicolaus Copernicus

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