Reformulate… [Study As­sess­ment]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2021-02-15 10:59 (84 d 21:17 ago) – Posting: # 22209
Views: 419

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
21,446 posts in 4,483 threads, 1,511 registered users;
online 36 (0 registered, 36 guests [including 15 identified bots]).
Forum time: Tuesday 09:16 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The fact that some geniuses were laughed at
does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses.    Carl Sagan

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