’Percentage’ of few values [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Helmut Homepage – 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
[image]

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

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
21,788 posts in 4,557 threads, 1,548 registered users;
online 6 (0 registered, 6 guests [including 4 identified bots]).
Forum time: Wednesday 11:18 CET (Europe/Vienna)

There is no adequate defense, except stupidity,
against the impact of a new idea.    Percy Williams Bridgman

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