Question about computing 90% CI w data from 2 separate studies [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by BEQool  – 2024-10-14 13:37 (58 d 00:37 ago) – Posting: # 24228
Views: 1,209

Hello J,

I would just use Treatment (or Center) as a factor in the model (as normally for parallel designs). I think that it doesnt matter what you use (Treatment or Center) because they are correlated - so all subject that got Treatment A are in one Center and all subjects that got Treatment C are in the other Center. So Treatment effect is the same as Center effect and you cannot distinguish them. They are confounded.
Similarly, you cannot get Center*Tretament interaction.
I doubt that your model even gives you anything? Do you get any results?


Hello Divyen,

❝ Are the reference and test lot same in both the studies? If no- then what is the purpose of further statistics? If yes- why was there a difference in Ratio if any?

Just courious, do you most of the time get the same Ratio if you repeat the study with the same lot of Test and Reference? Additionally, what is for you a "different" or the "same" ratio"? How small/big does the difference has to be that you say there is a difference in ratio? :-)


Regards
BEQool

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,336 posts in 4,902 threads, 1,665 registered users;
38 visitors (0 registered, 38 guests [including 9 identified bots]).
Forum time: 13:15 CET (Europe/Vienna)

I’m all in favor of the democratic principle
that one idiot is as good as one genius, but I draw the line
when someone takes the next step and concludes
that two idiots are better than one genius.    Leo Szilard

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