Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

Main page Policy Latest Posts Abbreviations

Robustness of bioequivalence when 90%CI doesn’t include 1 [Study Assessment]

posted by Darborn – Taiwan, 2025-12-23 09:55 (176 d 06:44 ago) – Posting: # 24536
Views: 1,919

Hi everyone,

Has anyone ever encountered a BE study result where the CI did not include "1"? If the regulatory agency asks for an assessment of whether bioequivalence can still be demonstrated, how should I reply?

Thank you!

Edit: Category changed; see also this post #1. [Helmut]

Complete thread:

Robustness of bioequivalence when 90%CI doesn’t include 1Darborn 2025-12-23 08:55 [Study Assessment]
- statistical significance ≠ clinical relevance Helmut 2025-12-23 13:52
  - statistical significance ≠ clinical relevance Darborn 2025-12-24 01:07
    - Δ (20% in general) Helmut 2025-12-24 09:59

Admin contact
23,654 posts in 4,992 threads, 1,571 registered users;
179 visitors (0 registered, 179 guests [including 12 identified bots]).
Forum time: 17:40 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Scientists often have a naïve faith that
if only they could discover enough facts about a problem,
these facts would somehow arrange themselves
in a compelling and true solution. Theodosius Dobzhansky

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC

Ing. Helmut Schütz

Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

Robustness of bioequivalence when 90%CI doesn’t include 1 [Study As­sess­ment]

Complete thread:

Robustness of bioequivalence when 90%CI doesn’t include 1 [Study Assessment]