meta analysis? [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2010-08-06 18:31 (4095 d 16:54 ago) – Posting: # 5735
Views: 14,166

Dear ElMaestro!

» I am afraid I do not have a qualified opinion.

Me not either, but I’m a little bit concerned about the (lacking) α-spending in meta analysis.

» Do you have a good idea about m.a.? I'd be happy to hear.

See Chapter 16 in Chow & Liu (3rd ed. 2009). They refer to two models (based on 2×2 cross-over studies only), where the first one is rather restrictive – assuming equal CVintra and CVinter across studies. Personal experience: nil.


  1. Chow S-C, Liu J-p. Meta-analysis for bioequivalence review.
    J Biopharm Stat. 1997:7(1):97–111. doi:10.1080/10543409708835172
  2. Chow S-C, J Shao J. Bioequivalence review for drug interchangeability.
    J Biopharm Stat. 1999;9(3):485–97. doi:10.1081/BIP-100101189

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
21,753 posts in 4,548 threads, 1,544 registered users;
online 6 (0 registered, 6 guests [including 5 identified bots]).
Forum time: Saturday 11:26 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Medical researches can be divided into two sorts:
those who think that meta is better and those
who believe that pooling is fooling.    Stephen Senn

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