Meta-analysis [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2010-02-07 18:41 (5564 d 18:20 ago) – Posting: # 4727
Views: 23,705

Dear all!

Meta-analysis was not acceptable in the draft (see this post), but made it to the final GL (Section 4.1.8 Evaluation / Presentation of data):

If for a particular formulation at a particular strength multiple studies have been performed some of which demonstrate bioequivalence and some of which do not, the body of evidence must be considered as a whole. Only relevant studies […] need be considered. The existence of a study which demonstrates bioequivalence does not mean that those which do not can be ignored. The applicant should thoroughly discuss the results and justify the claim that bioequivalence has been demonstrated. Alternatively, when relevant, a combined analysis of all studies can be provided in addition to the individual study analyses. It is not acceptable to pool together studies which fail to demonstrate bioequivalence in the absence of a study that does.

(my emphasis)

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
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,667 registered users;
59 visitors (0 registered, 59 guests [including 5 identified bots]).
Forum time: 14:01 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Patients may recover in spite of drugs or because of them.    John Gaddum

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