Increased variability [GxP / QC / QA]

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2021-09-17 20:51 (501 d 11:29 ago) – Posting: # 22586
Views: 3,851

Hi all,

❝ ❝ The CVs calculated from the confidence intervals in both ‘parts’ are much lower than the ones in the ‘full’ study. Or the other way ’round: If we pool the CVs of the ‘parts’ we could expect values which are lower than the ‘observed’ (tee-hee!) ones.


Correctly observed. And for exactly those reasons it makes very good sense to plot for example the RMSE, CV, SE of diff., or even the width of the CI as function of (cumulated) number of subjects.

It is not so difficult. :-)

Pass or fail!
ElMaestro

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,477 posts in 4,708 threads, 1,603 registered users;
29 visitors (0 registered, 29 guests [including 13 identified bots]).
Forum time: 07:20 CET (Europe/Vienna)

I think it is much more interesting to live with uncertainty
than to live with answers that might be wrong.    Richard Feynman

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