Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

’Percentage’ of few values [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Helmut  – Vienna, Austria, 2021-10-20 14:06 (48 d 22:11 ago) – Posting: # 22649
Views: 564

Hi Ohlbe & Qualityassurance,

» The wording in the EMA guideline is indeed not ideal. To interpret it, let's move back in history.

Since I attended these early conference, I can confirm it… However, speaking of ‘percentages’ of <100 values is unfortunate at least and \(\small{\geq \small{^{2}/_{3}}}\) was meant indeed. 67% is stupid and 66.7% or 66.67% hardly better.
I one insists in a percentage, it should be written as \(\small{\geq66.6666666666\ldots\%}\) or \(\small{\geq66.\dot{6}\%}\). 

—
Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖
Helmut Schütz


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

Complete thread:

• Acceptance criteria of analytical run qualityassurance 2021-10-18 07:00 [Regulatives / Guidelines] 
  • Acceptance criteria of analytical run ElMaestro 2021-10-18 08:35
  • Acceptance criteria of analytical run dshah 2021-10-18 12:36
    • Acceptance criteria of analytical run qualityassurance 2021-10-19 15:25
      • Acceptance criteria of analytical run Ohlbe 2021-10-19 18:54
        • Acceptance criteria of analytical run qualityassurance 2021-10-21 16:51
  • Acceptance criteria of analytical run Ohlbe 2021-10-18 14:43
    • ’Percentage’ of few valuesHelmut 2021-10-20 14:06
      • ’Percentage’ of few values qualityassurance 2021-10-21 16:57