’Percentage’ of few values [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2021-10-20 16:06 (910 d 02:01 ago) – Posting: # 22649
Views: 1,983

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
22,985 posts in 4,823 threads, 1,653 registered users;
46 visitors (0 registered, 46 guests [including 12 identified bots]).
Forum time: 18:07 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Complex, statistically improbable things are by their nature
more difficult to explain than
simple, statistically probable things.    Richard Dawkins

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