Following on from a thread on Linkedin which I thought was interesting I thought I would pose the question here to see if anyone had any different thoughts...
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/78665/78665-6148148494357053442
It seems as if some people think that comparative testing is not required to demonstrate substantial equivalence.
For the flowchart in the FDA's guidance document, decision 4 states:
"do the different technological characteristics of the devices raise different questions of safety and effectiveness?"
To answer this question we always performed comparative testing and then used the t-test or anova to show that the results obtained for that test are substantially equivalent.
Therefore, we have always had to resort to buying competitor products from ebay in order to do comparative testing between them.
I cannot understand how we would be able to prove substantial equivalence without performing comparative testing?
Does anybody have any thoughts on this?
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/78665/78665-6148148494357053442
It seems as if some people think that comparative testing is not required to demonstrate substantial equivalence.
For the flowchart in the FDA's guidance document, decision 4 states:
"do the different technological characteristics of the devices raise different questions of safety and effectiveness?"
To answer this question we always performed comparative testing and then used the t-test or anova to show that the results obtained for that test are substantially equivalent.
Therefore, we have always had to resort to buying competitor products from ebay in order to do comparative testing between them.
I cannot understand how we would be able to prove substantial equivalence without performing comparative testing?
Does anybody have any thoughts on this?