Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

’Percentage’ of few values [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by qualityassurance – 2021-10-21 18:57 (1309 d 20:13 ago) – Posting: # 22652
Views: 3,865

Hello Helmut,

❝ 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 \(\small{\geq66.\dot{6}\%}\). 

So almost all (Regulatory Assessors) agree that 2/3=66.66666667%=66.67%=67%=Accepted run.

Regards,
Qualityassurance

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 values Helmut 2021-10-20 14:06
      • ’Percentage’ of few valuesqualityassurance 2021-10-21 16:57