Flaw in the GL? [Software]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2013-01-08 12:44 (4554 d 01:17 ago) – Posting: # 9798
Views: 12,861

Dear Helmut,

❝ ... Transforms definitely into (II).


In contrast to you I'm not quite sure.

It is explicitly stated that way (< and not ≤) in

Hauschke, Steinijans, Pigeot
"Bioequivalence Studies in Drug Development"
Wiley, Chichester, 2007, page 90

... but I have 2 other minority reports for you (proof/evidence by authority: "Well, Lieschen Mueller says it's true, so it must be." :cool:)

Westlake, W.J.
"Symmetrical Confidence Intervals for Bioequivalence Trials"
Biometrics, 32, p 741-744 (1976)

stating the confidence interval inclusion rule explicitly with and

Diletti et.al.
"Sample size determination for bioequivalence assessment by means of confidence intervals"
Int. J. Clin. Pharm., Ther. and Tox., Vol.30, Supl. 1, p. S51-58 (192)

stating the two one-sided tests explicitly as
t1=(mT-mR-ln(Θ1))/(sD*sqrt(2/n)) t(1-α,df)
t2=(mT-mR-ln(Θ2))/(sD*sqrt(2/n)) -t(1-α,df)


Other papers state the interval inclusion rule as
I ⊂ (Θ12)
subset sign: an U rotated 90° clockwise
where I is an appropriate confidence interval. I as an amateur are not able to figure out what is meant: The meaning A⊆B, when A is called a subset of B; A can be equal to B (i.e. borders included). Or A⊂B, then A is called a proper subset of B; A cannot equal B (i.e. at least one border excluded).
That time the "Theory of sets" was dealt with I have skipped school :-D.

This is only an incomplete selection of findings which led to my uncertainness. As stated above: Using real numbers (not rounded) it will not make much a difference how we implement it, thus we can't empirical test it via simulations.
Any pro-statistician out there to enlighten this issue?

Regards,

Detlew

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,687 registered users;
66 visitors (0 registered, 66 guests [including 12 identified bots]).
Forum time: 15:02 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Complex, statistically improbable things are by their nature
more difficult to explain than
simple, statistically probable things.    Richard Dawkins

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