’Percentage’ of few values [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2021-10-20 14:06 (339 d 11:20 ago) – Posting: # 22649
Views: 1,306

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 🖖 Довге життя Україна! [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
22,385 posts in 4,684 threads, 1,594 registered users;
online 10 (0 registered, 10 guests [including 9 identified bots]).
Forum time: Sunday 01:27 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

You really don’t know what you don’t know until you write about it.
Then, everyone knows what you don’t know.    Rod Machado

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