These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

139 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1287202)

  • 1. Sample size determination for bioequivalence assessment using a multiplicative model.
    Hauschke D; Steinijans VW; Diletti E; Burke M
    J Pharmacokinet Biopharm; 1992 Oct; 20(5):557-61. PubMed ID: 1287202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A note on sample size calculation in bioequivalence trials.
    Hauschke D
    J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn; 2002 Feb; 29(1):89-94; author reply 99. PubMed ID: 12194537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Assessment of bioequivalence using a multiplicative model.
    Chow SC; Peace KE; Shao J
    J Biopharm Stat; 1991; 1(2):193-203. PubMed ID: 1844696
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Choice of characteristics and their bioequivalence ranges for the comparison of absorption rates of immediate-release drug formulations.
    Schall R; Luus HG; Steinijans VW; Hauschke D
    Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther; 1994 Jul; 32(7):323-8. PubMed ID: 7952792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Update on the statistical analysis of bioequivalence studies.
    Steinijans VW; Hauschke D
    Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol; 1990 Mar; 28(3):105-10. PubMed ID: 2318545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Cmax/AUC is a clearer measure than Cmax for absorption rates in investigations of bioequivalence.
    Endrenyi L; Fritsch S; Yan W
    Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol; 1991 Oct; 29(10):394-9. PubMed ID: 1748540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Sample size determination: extended tables for the multiplicative model and bioequivalence ranges of 0.9 to 1.11 and 0.7 to 1.43.
    Diletti E; Hauschke D; Steinijans VW
    Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol; 1992; 30 Suppl 1():S59-62. PubMed ID: 1601533
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Sample size determination: extended tables for the multiplicative model and bioequivalence ranges of 0.9 to 1.11 and 0.7 to 1.43.
    Diletti E; Hauschke D; Steinijans VW
    Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol; 1992 Aug; 30(8):287-90. PubMed ID: 1526691
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Variation of Cmax and Cmax/AUC in investigations of bioequivalence.
    Endrenyi L; Yan W
    Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol; 1993 Apr; 31(4):184-9. PubMed ID: 8500920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Bioequivalence: performance of several measures of extent of absorption.
    Bois FY; Tozer TN; Hauck WW; Chen ML; Patnaik R; Williams RL
    Pharm Res; 1994 May; 11(5):715-22. PubMed ID: 8058642
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effect of changing the bioequivalence range from (0.80, 1.20) to (0.80, 1.25) on the power and sample size.
    Steinijans VW; Hauck WW; Diletti E; Hauschke D; Anderson S
    Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol; 1992 Dec; 30(12):571-5. PubMed ID: 1473872
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Why rate of absorption inferences in single dose bioequivalence studies are often inappropriate.
    Basson RP; Ghosh A; Cerimele BJ; DeSante KA; Howey DC
    Pharm Res; 1998 Feb; 15(2):276-9. PubMed ID: 9523315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Statistical aspects of bioequivalence--a review.
    Pidgen AW
    Xenobiotica; 1992 Jul; 22(7):881-93. PubMed ID: 1455906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Evaluation of bioequivalence of highly variable drugs using clinical trial simulations. II: Comparison of single and multiple-dose trials using AUC and Cmax.
    el-Tahtawy AA; Tozer TN; Harrison F; Lesko L; Williams R
    Pharm Res; 1998 Jan; 15(1):98-104. PubMed ID: 9487554
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Limits of 80%-125% for AUC and 70%-143% for Cmax. What is the impact on bioequivalence studies?
    Hauck WW; Parekh A; Lesko LJ; Chen ML; Williams RL
    Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther; 2001 Aug; 39(8):350-5. PubMed ID: 11515710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Pharmacokinetic characteristics for extent of absorption and clearance in drug/drug interaction studies.
    Schall R; Hundt HK; Luus HG
    Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther; 1994 Dec; 32(12):633-7. PubMed ID: 7881699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Statistical aspects of bioequivalence testing between two medicinal products.
    Zintzaras E
    Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet; 2005; 30(1-2):41-6. PubMed ID: 16010860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Evaluation of different indirect measures of rate of drug absorption in comparative pharmacokinetic studies.
    Lacey LF; Keene ON; Duquesnoy C; Bye A
    J Pharm Sci; 1994 Feb; 83(2):212-5. PubMed ID: 8169791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Evaluation of truncated areas in the assessment of bioequivalence of immediate release formulations of drugs with long half-lives and of Cmax with different dissolution rates.
    Sathe P; Venitz J; Lesko L
    Pharm Res; 1999 Jun; 16(6):939-43. PubMed ID: 10397617
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Estimated coefficient of variation values for sample size planning in bioequivalence studies.
    Yuen KH; Wong JW; Yap SP; Billa N
    Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther; 2001 Jan; 39(1):37-40. PubMed ID: 11204936
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.