Reformulate… [Study As­sess­ment]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2021-02-15 10:59 (466 d 08:45 ago) – Posting: # 22209
Views: 797

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 🖖 [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
22,110 posts in 4,630 threads, 1,567 registered users;
online 11 (0 registered, 11 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time: Friday 20:44 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

We absolutely must leave room for doubt
or there is no progress and no learning.
There is no learning without having to pose a question.
And a question requires doubt.
People search for certainty.
But there is no certainty.    Richard Feynman

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