90% CIs for BE? [🇷 for BE/BA]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2008-11-17 14:30 (5929 d 13:36 ago) – Posting: # 2688
Views: 12,442

Dear Yung-jin,

I agree with ElMaestro. BTW, Westlake’s CI should never be used and thrown into the statistical garbage collection because it obscures information about the location of the difference (I have not the slightest idea why it’s still used in WinNonlin).
Example from a study with low variability (CVintra 8.63%, n=12):

Shortest CI:   100.54% – 113.52% (PE 106.84%)
Westlake’s CI:  88.06% – 111.94%

According to the original paper of Westlake* the CI would be stated as ±11.94%:not really: You have no clue that the BA of the test formulation is statistically significant (though not clinically relevant) higher than the reference’s.



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
23,379 posts in 4,913 threads, 1,661 registered users;
268 visitors (0 registered, 268 guests [including 18 identified bots]).
Forum time: 04:07 CET (Europe/Vienna)

Statistics is the art of never having to say you’re wrong.
Variance is what any two statisticians are at.    C.J. Bradfield

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