1010 USP39-NF34 ANALYTICAL DATA INTERPRETATION AND TREATMENT (ÖÐÓ¢ÎÄ) ÁªÏµ¿Í·þ

·¢²¼Ê±¼ä : ÐÇÆÚÁù ÎÄÕÂ1010 USP39-NF34 ANALYTICAL DATA INTERPRETATION AND TREATMENT (ÖÐÓ¢ÎÄ)¸üÐÂÍê±Ï¿ªÊ¼ÔĶÁ89bea076b9d528ea80c779e2

ÉúÕâÖÖÇé¿öµÄ¿ÉÄÜÐÔ£¬±ÈÈ磬¿ÉÒÔͨ¹ý±È½ÏÖÊÁ¿±ê×¼ÏÞ¶ÈÖÐÏÖÐз½·¨µÄ·Ö²¼Êý¾ÝÀ´È·¶¨¡£ÕâÐèҪʹÓÃͼÐ稻òͨ¹ýʹÓÃÈÝÈÌÇø¼äÀ´Íê³É£¬¸½Â¼E¸ø³öÁËÒ»¸öÏàÓ¦µÄʹÓÃʵÀý¡£×ÜÖ®£¬¦ÄÖµµÄÑ¡ÔñÒª¸ù¾ÝʵÑéÊҵĿÆѧÐèÇó¡£ The next two components relate to the probability of error. The data could lead to a conclusion of similarity when the procedures are unacceptably different (as defined by ¦Ä). This is called a false positive or Type I error. The error could also be in the other direction; that is, the procedures could be similar, but the data do not permit that conclusion. This is a false negative or Type II error. With statistical methods, it is not possible to completely eliminate the possibility of either error. However, by choosing the sample size appropriately, the probability of each of these errors can be made acceptably small. The acceptable maximum probability of a Type I error is commonly denoted as ¦Á and is commonly taken as 5%, but may be chosen differently. The desired maximum probability of a Type II error is commonly denoted by¦Â. Often, ¦Âis specified indirectly by choosing a desired level of 1 ? ¦Â , which is called the ¨Dpower¡¬ of the test. In the context of equivalency testing, power is the probability of correctly concluding that two procedures are equivalent. Power is commonly taken to be 80% or 90% (corresponding to a¦Âof 20% or 10%), though other values may be chosen. The protocol for the experiment should specify ¦Ä, ¦Á, and power. The sample size will depend on all of these components. An example is given in Appendix E. Although Appendix E determines only a single value, it is often useful to determine a table of sample sizes corresponding to different choices of ¦Ä, a, and power. Such a table often allows for a more informed choice of sample size to better balance the competing priorities of resources and risks (false negative and false positive conclusions).

¼ÆËãÑù±¾Á¿µÄÁíÍâÁ½¸ö³É·ÖÓëÎó²î¸ÅÂÊÏà¹Ø¡£µ±Á½ÖÖ·½·¨´æÔÚ²»¿É½ÓÊܵIJîÒ죨Èç¦ÄËù¶¨Ò壩ʱ£¬¶øÊý¾ÝÈ´¸ø³öÁ˾ßÓÐÏàËÆÐԵĽáÂÛ¡£Õâ±»³ÆΪ¼ÙÑôÐÔ½á¹û»òIÀà´íÎó¡£´íÎóÒ²¿ÉÒÔÀ´×ÔÁíÒ»¸ö·½Ïò£¬·½·¨ÊÇÏàËƵĵ«Êý¾ÝÈ´²»ÄÜÖ§³Ö¸Ã½áÂÛ¡£ÕâÊǼÙÒõÐÔ½á¹û»òIIÀà´íÎó¡£Ê¹ÓÃͳ¼Æ·½·¨£¬Á½ÖÖ´íÎó¶¼ÊÇÎÞ·¨ÍêÈ«±ÜÃâµÄ¡£È»¶ø£¬Í¨¹ýÑ¡ÔñºÏÊʵÄÑù±¾Á¿£¬¿ÉÒÔ½«·¢ÉúÕâЩ´íÎóµÄ¿ÉÄÜÐÔÓÐЧµØ¼õСµ½Ò»¸ö¿ÉÒÔ½ÓÊܵĺÜС³Ì¶È¡£IÀà´íÎóµÄ×î´ó¿É½ÓÊܸÅÂÊÒ»°ãÓæÁ±íʾ£¬²¢ÇÒȡֵͨ³£Îª5%£¨Ò²¿ÉÒÔÈ¡ÆäËûÖµ£©¡£IIÀà´íÎóµÄ×î´óÆÚÍû¸ÅÂÊÒ»°ãÓæ±íʾ¡£Ò»°ãÓÃÒ»¸öÆÚÍûˮƽ1-¦Â£¬¼´³ÆΪ¼ì²â¡°Ð§ÄÜ¡±À´¼ä½ÓÈ·¶¨¦Â¡£ÔÚµÈЧÐÔ¼ì²âÇéÐÎÖУ¬Ð§ÄÜÊÇÅж¨Á½ÖÖ·½·¨µÈЧµÄÕýÈ·¸ÅÂÊ¡£¾¡¹ÜÒ²¿ÉÑ¡ÔñÆäËûÖµ£¬Í¨³£Ð§ÄÜȡֵΪ80%»ò90%£¨¼°ÏàÓ¦µÄ¦ÂֵΪ20%»ò10%£©¡£ÊµÑé·½°¸ÖÐÓ¦¹æ¶¨¦Ä£¬¦ÁºÍЧÄÜ¡£Ñù±¾Á¿½«ÓëËùÓеÄÕâÈý¸öÒòËØÖ±½ÓÏà¹Ø¡£¸½Â¼E¸ø³öÁËÏàÓ¦µÄ¼ÆËãʵÀý¡£¾¡¹Ü¸½Â¼E½öÈ·¶¨ÁËÒ»¸öÖµ£¬µ«Í¨³£¸ù¾Ý²»Í¬µÄ¦Ä£¬¦ÁºÍЧÄÜÀ´È·¶¨Ò»¸öÑù±¾Á¿±íÊǺÜÓÐÓõģ¬ÕâÑùµÄÑù±¾Á¿±íÌṩÁ˸ü¶àµÄÑ¡Ôñ£¬ÒÔ±ãÔÊÐí¸üºÃµØƽºâ×ÊÔ´Óë·çÏÕ£¨¼ÙÒõÐԺͼÙÑôÐÔ£©µÄÎÊÌâ¡£

APPENDIX A: CONTROL CHARTS

¸½Â¼A£º¿ØÖÆͼ

Figure 1 illustrates a control chart for individual values. There are several different methods for calculating the upper control limit (UCL) and lower control limit (LCL). One method involves the moving range, which is defined as the absolute difference between two consecutive measurements (xi¨Cxi-1). These moving ranges are averaged (MR) and used in the following formulas:

ͼ1ÏÔʾÁËÒ»¸ö¸÷µ¥¶ÀÊýÖµµÄ¿ØÖÆͼ¡£Óм¸ÖÖ²»Í¬µÄ·½·¨¼ÆËã¿ØÖÆÉÏÏÞ£¨UCL£©ºÍÏÂÏÞ£¨LCL£©¡£Ò»¸ö·½·¨Éæ¼°µ½Òƶ¯Çø¼ä£¬Õâ±»¶¨ÒåΪÁ¬ÐøÁ½´Î²âÁ¿²îÖµµÄ¾ø¶ÔÖµ(xi¨Cxi-1)¡£ÕâЩÒƶ¯Çø¼ä±»Çóƽ¾ùÖµ£¨MR£©²¢±»ÓÃÔÚÏÂÁй«Ê½ÖУº

where x is the sample mean, and d2 is a constant commonly used for this type of chart and is based on the number of observations associated with the moving range calculation. Where n = 2 (two consecutive measurements), as here, d2 = 1.128. For the example in Figure 1, the MR was 1.7:

ÆäÖÐxÊÇÑù±¾µÄƽ¾ùÖµ£¬d2ÊÇͨ³£ÓÃÓÚÕâÀàͼ±íÖеÄÒ»¸ö³£Êý£¬ËüÒ²ÊÇ»ùÓÚÓëÒƶ¯Çø¼ä¼ÆËãÏà¹ØµÄ¹Û²â¡£ÔÚÕâÀïn = 2 (Á½´ÎÁ¬Ðø²âÁ¿)£¬d2 = 1.128¡£Í¼1ÖÐËùʾµÄÀý×ÓÖУ¬MRֵΪ1.7¡£

Other methods exist that are better able to detect small shifts in the process mean, such as the cumulative sum (also known as ¨DCUSUM¡¬) and exponentially weighted moving average (¨DEWMA¡¬).

ÓÐһЩÆäËûµÄ·½·¨¸üÊÊÓÚ¼ì²â·½·¨¾ùÖµµÄ΢С²¨¶¯£¬ÀýÈçÀۼӺͣ¨Ò²±»³ÆΪ¡°CUSUM¡±£©ºÍÖ¸Êý¼ÓȨµÄÒƶ¯¾ùÖµ£¨¡°EWMA¡±£©¡£

Figure 1. Individual X or individual measurements control chart for control samples.

In this particular example, the mean for all the samples (x) is 102.0, the UCL is 106.5, and the LCL is 97.5.

ͼ1£º¿ØÖÆÑù±¾µÄµ¥Ò»XÖµ»òµ¥Ò»²âÁ¿¿ØÖÆͼ¡£

ÔÚ±¾ÀýÖУ¬ËùÓÐÑù±¾(x)µÄ¾ùֵΪ102.0£¬UCLΪ106.5£¬LCLΪ97.5¡£

APPENDIX B: PRECISION STUDY

¸½Â¼B£º¾«ÃܶÈÑо¿

Table 1 displays data collected from a precision study. This study consisted of five independent runs and, within each run, results from three replicates were collected.

±í1ÏÔʾÁËÒ»¸ö¾«ÃܶÈÑо¿Öвɼ¯µÄÊý¾Ý¡£ÕâÏîÑо¿°üÀ¨ÁË5¸ö¶ÀÁ¢µÄ×飬ÿ×éʵÑéÀ´×Ô3´ÎÖظ´µÄ½á¹û¡£

Table 1. Data from a Precision Study

±í1. ¾«ÃܶÈÑо¿Êý¾Ý

Replicate Number 1 2 3 Mean Standard deviation %RSDa 1 100.70 101.05 101.15 100.97 0.236 0.234% 2 99.46 99.37 99.59 99.47 0.111 0.111% Run Number 3 99.96 100.17 101.01 100.38 0.556 0.554% 4 101.80 102.16 102.44 102.13 0.321 0.314% 5 101.91 102.00 101.67 101.86 0.171 0.167% a

%RSD (percent relative standard deviation) = 100% ¡Á (standard deviation/mean)

a

%RSD (°Ù·ÖÏà¶Ô±ê׼ƫ²î) = 100% ¡Á (±ê׼ƫ²î/¾ùÖµ)

Table 1A. Analysis of Variance Table for Data Presented in Table 1

±í1A ±í1ÖÐÊý¾ÝµÄ·½²î·ÖÎö±í

aSource of Variation Degrees of Freedom (df) Sum of Squares (SS) Mean Squares(MS) F = MSB/MSW Between runs 4 14.200 3.550 34.886 Within runs 10 1.018 0.102 Total 14 15.217 a

The Mean Squares Between (MSB) = SSBetween/dfBetween and the Mean Squares Within (MSW) = SSWithin/dfWithin a

×é¼ä¾ù·½ (MSB) = SSBetween/dfBetween¼°×éÄÚ¾ù·½ (MSW) = SSWithin/dfWithin

Performing an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the data in Table 1 leads to the ANOVA table (Table 1A). Because there were an equal number of replicates per run in the precision study, values for VarianceRun and VarianceRep can be derived from the ANOVA table in a straightforward manner. The equations below calculate the variability

associated with both the runs and the replicates where the MSwithin represents the ¨Derror¡¬ or ¨Dwithin-run¡¬ mean square, and MSbetween represents the ¨Dbetween-run¡¬ mean square.

¶Ô±í1ÖеÄÊý¾Ý½øÐз½²î·ÖÎö£¨ANOVA£©¿ÉÒԵõ½·½²î·ÖÎö±í£¨±í1A£©¡£ÒòΪÔÚ¾«ÃܶÈÑо¿ÖÐÿ×éÖظ´Í¬Ñù´ÎÊý£¬¿ÉÒÔÓÃÒ»ÖÖÖ±½ÓµÄ·½Ê½´Ó·½²î·ÖÎö±íÖеóöVarianceRunÖµºÍVarianceRepÖµ¡£ÏÂÁй«Ê½¿ÉÒÔ¼ÆËãÓëʵÑé×飨runs£©Ïà¹ØµÄ±äÒìÐÔºÍÓëÖظ´ÐÔ£¨replicates£©Ïà¹ØµÄ±äÒìÐÔ£¬ÆäÖÐMSwithin±íʾ¡°´íÎó¡±»ò¡°×éÄÚ¡±¾ù·½²î£¬MSbetween±íʾ¡°×é¼ä¡±¾ù·½²î¡£

VarianceRep = MSwithin = 0.102

[NOTE¡ªIt is common practice to use a value of 0 for VarianceRun when the calculated value is negative.] Estimates

can still be obtained with unequal replication, but the formulas are more complex. Many statistical software packages can easily handle unequal replication. Studying the relative magnitude of the two variance components is important when designing and interpreting a precision study. The insight gained can be used to focus any ongoing procedure improvement effort and, more important, it can be used to ensure that procedures are capable of supporting their intended uses. By carefully defining what constitutes a result (i.e., reportable value), one harnesses the power of averaging to achieve virtually any desired precision. That is, by basing the reportable value on an average across replicates and/or runs, rather than on any single result, one can reduce the %RSD, and reduce it in a predictable fashion. [×¢Ò⣭ͨ³£µ±¼ÆËãֵΪ¸ºÖµÊ±£¬½«VarianceRunֵʵ¼ÊÉèΪ0]¡£µ±Öظ´´ÎÊý²»µÈʱҲ¿ÉÒԵóö¹À¼ÆÖµ£¬µ«Êǹ«Ê½»á±È½Ï¸´ÔÓ¡£Ðí¶àͳ¼ÆÈí¼þ°ü¿ÉÒÔºÜÈÝÒ×½â¾öÕâÖÖÇé¿ö¡£ÔÚÉè¼ÆºÍ½âÊ;«ÃܶÈÑо¿Ê±£¬Ñо¿Á½¸ö·½²î³É·ÖÏà¶Ô´óСÊǺÜÖØÒªµÄ¡£Ñо¿Ëù»ñµÃµÄ¶´²ìÁ¦¿ÉÒÔÓÃÓÚ¹Ø×¢ÈκÎÕýÔÚ½øÐеÄÓÅ»¯·½·¨µÄŬÁ¦£¬¸üÖØÒªµÄÊÇ£¬Ò²¿ÉÒÔÓÃÓÚÈ·ÈÏ·½·¨ÊÇ¿ÉÒÔÂú×ãÆäÔ¤ÆÚÓÃ;µÄ¡£Í¨¹ý×Ðϸ¶¨Òå½á¹ûµÄ×é³É£¨±ÈÈ磬±¨¸æÖµ£©£¬ÀûÓÃƽ¾ùÖµµÄÁ¦Á¿¾Í¿ÉÒÔÊÂʵÉÏ»ñµÃÈκÎÔ¤Æڵľ«Ãܶȡ£Õâ¾ÍÊÇ˵£¬Èç¹û»ùÓÚ¶à´Î²âÁ¿¼°/»ò¶à×é²âÁ¿µÄƽ¾ùÖµÉú³É±¨¸æÖµ£¬¶ø²»ÊÇ»ùÓÚµ¥´Î²âÁ¿Éú³É±¨¸æÖµ£¬Ò»¸öÈË¿ÉÒÔ½µµÍ%RSD£¬²¢ÇÒÊÇÒÔ¿ÉÔ¤¼ûµÄ·½Ê½½µµÍ¡£

Table 2 shows the computed variance and %RSD of the mean (i.e., of the reportable value) for different combinations of number of runs and number of replicates per run using the following formulas: ¶ÔÓÚʵÑé×éÊýºÍÿ×éÖظ´´ÎÊý²»Í¬µÄ×éºÏʱ£¬±í2ʹÓÃÏÂÁй«Ê½¼ÆËã³öµÄ·½²î¼°¾ùÖµµÄ%RSD£º

For example, the Variance of the mean, Standard deviation of the mean, and %RSD of a test involving two runs and three replicates per each run are 0.592, 0.769, and 0.76% respectively, as shown below.

±ÈÈ磬µ±Ò»ÏîÑо¿°üÀ¨2¸öʵÑé×飬ÿ×é3´ÎÖظ´ÊµÑéʱ£¬ÈçÏÂËùʾ¾ùÖµµÄ·½²î£¬±ê׼ƫ²î¼°%RSD·Ö±ðΪ0.592, 0.769ºÍ0.76%¡£

RSD = (0.769/100.96) ¡Á 100% = 0.76%

where 100.96 is the mean for all the data points in Table 1. As illustrated in Table 2, increasing the number of runs from one to two provides a more dramatic reduction in the variability of the reportable value than does increasing the number of replicates per run.

ÆäÖÐ100.96ÊDZí1ÖÐËùÓÐÊý¾ÝµÄƽ¾ùÖµ¡£Èç±í2Ëùʾ£¬ÓëÔö¼Óÿ×éʵÑéÖÐÖظ´´ÎÊýÏà±È£¬½«ÊµÑé×éÊýÁ¿´Ó1Ôö¼Óµ½2¿ÉÒÔ½«±¨¸æÖµµÄ·½²îÏÔÖø¼õÉÙ¡£