Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum • Williams’ designs more reliable?

Williams’ designs more reliable? [Design Issues]

posted by d_labes – Berlin, Germany, 2012-11-11 15:14 (4551 d 03:38 ago) – Posting: # 9531
Views: 5,274

Dear Ben,

❝ Note that I was not talking about 'more precise' results.

I did! Originally you talked about " ... more reliable results ... ".
So give me an impression what this could be and how to quantify this?

—
Regards,

Detlew

Complete thread:

Replicated cross over with fixed number of periods martin 2012-11-05 17:31 [Design Issues]
- Additional information martin 2012-11-06 11:50
  - Quick Q for my clarification ElMaestro 2012-11-06 12:09
    - Quick Q for my clarification martin 2012-11-06 12:29
      - 5 periods ElMaestro 2012-11-06 12:43
      - Latin Squares ↔ Williams’ designs Helmut 2012-11-06 14:07
        
        Latin Squares ↔ Williams’ designs Ben 2012-11-07 21:10
        
        Williams’ designs more reliable? d_labes 2012-11-08 08:29
        
        Williams’ designs more reliable? Ben 2012-11-09 18:20
        
        Williams’ designs more reliable?d_labes 2012-11-11 14:14
        
        Williams’ designs more reliable? Ben 2012-11-18 13:20
        
        Frequentists vs. Bayesians Helmut 2012-11-18 14:48
        
        Frequentists vs. Bayesians Ben 2012-11-18 15:28

Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,673 registered users;
91 visitors (0 registered, 91 guests [including 2 identified bots]).
Forum time: 19:52 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

There are two possible outcomes: if the result confirms the
hypothesis, then you’ve made a measurement. If the result is
contrary to the hypothesis, then you’ve made a discovery. Enrico Fermi

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC

Ing. Helmut Schütz