Rounding [Software]
Hi Helmut!
I'm currently not in reach of my SAS but I strongly suppose that it will give 125.01 if one uses the ordinary
[edit]Just checked (03-Jan-2013)
(Note the definition of rounding to 2 decimals as rounding to multiples of 0.01)
[/edit]
Seems the R folks did it again the way different from what all others do
.
A more drastically example, may be important also in normal life I think:
At least in Germany one would expect:
Wow! Seems rounding the CI anyhow is not such a good idea.
[edit]Also the rounding seems to be implied by regulatory definitions of the acceptance range as 80.00 - 125.00 (EMA & FDA)![/edit]
But ... IMHO this must be independent from the used rounding method for 5 except the magnitude of deviation from the not rounded results since all the other results >125.0000 - 125.0049 will be also counted as BE if rounded and as not BE if not rounded.
❝ How does your software round?
I'm currently not in reach of my SAS but I strongly suppose that it will give 125.01 if one uses the ordinary
ROUND()
function. To be in accordance with the R method (or other software) one has to use the ROUNDE()
function which rounds to even.❝ Mine:
❝ Excel 2000: round(125.005, 2) → 125.01
Excel 2010: round(125.005,2) → 125.01
[edit]Just checked (03-Jan-2013)
SAS 9.2: round(125.005,0.01) → 125.01
(Note the definition of rounding to 2 decimals as rounding to multiples of 0.01)
[/edit]
❝ OO Calc: round(125.005, 2) → 125.01
❝ ...
❝ R 2.15.2: round(125.005, 2) → 125.00
Seems the R folks did it again the way different from what all others do

❝ In normal life not sooo important
A more drastically example, may be important also in normal life I think:
round(c(0.5,1.5,2.5,3.5,4.5,5.5),0)
[1] 0 2 2 4 4 6
At least in Germany one would expect:
[1] 1 2 3 4 5 6
❝ ... but in simulations. Example (106 sim’s, empiric alpha ~ T/R 1.25 in conventional balanced cross-overs).
❝ n CV alpha alpha
❝ no rounding CI rounded
❝ 42 15% 0.049842 0.050746 (sig. >0.05)
❝ 36 17% 0.050010 0.050706 (sig. >0.05)
Wow! Seems rounding the CI anyhow is not such a good idea.
[edit]Also the rounding seems to be implied by regulatory definitions of the acceptance range as 80.00 - 125.00 (EMA & FDA)![/edit]
But ... IMHO this must be independent from the used rounding method for 5 except the magnitude of deviation from the not rounded results since all the other results >125.0000 - 125.0049 will be also counted as BE if rounded and as not BE if not rounded.
—
Regards,
Detlew
Regards,
Detlew
Complete thread:
- Rounding Helmut 2013-01-01 16:51 [Software]
- Roundingd_labes 2013-01-02 12:51
- Rounding Helmut 2013-01-04 17:35
- Rounding d_labes 2013-01-05 19:25
- Rounding Helmut 2013-01-05 20:13
- Sim’s are sim’s are sim’s d_labes 2013-01-05 20:57
- Another vicious circle Helmut 2013-01-06 02:21
- Where all these numbers came from? d_labes 2013-01-07 15:52
- Flaw in the GL? Helmut 2013-01-07 17:29
- Flaw in the GL? d_labes 2013-01-08 11:44
- What a mess! Helmut 2013-01-08 19:08
- What a mess! d_labes 2013-01-09 10:33
- What a mess! Helmut 2013-01-09 15:18
- What a mess! d_labes 2013-01-09 10:33
- What a mess! Helmut 2013-01-08 19:08
- Flaw in the GL? d_labes 2013-01-08 11:44
- Flaw in the GL? Helmut 2013-01-07 17:29
- Where all these numbers came from? d_labes 2013-01-07 15:52
- Rounding Helmut 2013-01-05 20:13
- Rounding d_labes 2013-01-05 19:25
- Rounding Helmut 2013-01-04 17:35
- Rounding ElMaestro 2013-01-02 16:12
- Abandon rounding Helmut 2013-01-02 17:04
- Rounding yjlee168 2013-01-05 23:15
- Roundingd_labes 2013-01-02 12:51