Groups: (Hardly‽) overlapping CIs [Design Issues]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2024-11-22 13:58 (9 d 04:01 ago) – Posting: # 24292
Views: 454

Hi BEQool,

❝ […] Unfortunately, these kind of deficiency questions will probably become inevitable when conducting a study in groups.

Quite likely, esp. since agencies think that \(\small{p(G\times T)<0.05}\) is a signal of data manipulation.

❝ ❝ […] a separate exploratory analysis of each group was performed and produced the following outcomes

❝ Did you perform this exploratory analysis of each group or did the agency do it?

The applicant did.

❝ ❝ Therefore, the applicant should provide a justification for this difference and discuss its potential impact on the conclusion of bioequivalence.

↑ This was a request of the agency.

❝ ❝ A new term: Hardly overlapping CIs. Again: So what? Justification?

❝ How do you plan to "justify" this difference?

Well, the deadline for the response is today. I made only sarcastic comments like …

As long as confidence limits overlap, treatment effects estimated in the groups do not differ significantly. To question that is like saying “since the upper confidence limit is 124%, products are hardly bioequivalent”

… and suggested the applicant to translate it into a more diplomatic language.
—
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
23,328 posts in 4,898 threads, 1,662 registered users;
62 visitors (0 registered, 62 guests [including 9 identified bots]).
Forum time: 17:59 CET (Europe/Vienna)

Satisfaction of one’s curiosity is one of the greatest sources
of happiness in life.    Linus Pauling

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