80% confidence ? [Power / Sample Size]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2010-03-19 14:02 (5536 d 05:34 ago) – Posting: # 4938
Views: 12,990

Dear Helmut!

❝ In the thread mentioned above I used a 95% CI, which is quite over-weary… Patterson & Jones (2006) recommend an 80% one-sided-interval (or the common producer's risk of 20%).

Sorry, but I can't verify that 80% :confused:.
In Patterson, Jones "BIOEQUIVALENCE and STATISTICS in CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY", Chapter 5.7, page 164 (of my copy) in the text it is mentioned "... with an upper 50% confidence bound ..." which is clearly a typo.
If I try to verify their example (Table 5.6) I get the upper confidence bound mentioned only if I use alpha=5%.

BTW: I nevertheless are the opinion that a 95% CI is too stringent.
But have no reference for it. Patterson and Jones cite Gould in this context.

Gould, A.L. (1995) Group sequential extensions of a standard
bioequivalence testing procedure.

J. Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics, 23, 57–86.

Since I don't have this on file yet, I can't verify if this is also only a typo?

Regards,

Detlew

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,668 registered users;
112 visitors (0 registered, 112 guests [including 8 identified bots]).
Forum time: 20:36 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Don’t undertake a project
unless it’s manifestly important
and nearly impossible.    Edwin H. Land

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