Reformulate… [Study As­sess­ment]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2021-02-15 10:59 (15 d 13:06 ago) – Posting: # 22209
Views: 180

Hi Ibrahim,

» I am confusing to be sure that the test product is bad, so i am asking your help to know the real cause of these results.

Difficult to guess the ‘real cause’ but repeating the study in a larger sample size – given the point estimates – is futile. Even if you believe that the result were due to chance and hope that the point estimates will shift to 0.85 you would need hundreds of subjects to show BE with 80% power.
BTW, the CV of AUC (~0.351) is larger than the one of Cmax (~0.245). Possible but uncommon.

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖
Helmut Schütz
[image]

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

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
21,359 posts in 4,460 threads, 1,492 registered users;
online 15 (0 registered, 15 guests [including 2 identified bots]).
Forum time: Wednesday 00:05 CET (Europe/Vienna)

The art and science of asking questions
is the source of all knowledge.    Thomas Berger

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