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 *

127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15119019)

  • 1. Sample size considerations for establishing clinical bioequivalence of allergen formulations.
    Rabin RL; Slater JE; Lachenbruch P; Pastor RW
    Arb Paul Ehrlich Inst Bundesamt Sera Impfstoffe Frankf A M; 2003; (94):24-33. PubMed ID: 15119019
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Alternative confidence intervals for the assessment of bioequivalence in four-period cross-over designs.
    Quiroz J; Ting N; Wei GC; Burdick RK
    Stat Med; 2002 Jul; 21(13):1825-47. PubMed ID: 12111892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A modified large sample approach in the assessment of population bioequivalence.
    Quiroz J; Ting N; Wei GC; Burdick RK
    J Biopharm Stat; 2000 Nov; 10(4):527-44. PubMed ID: 11104391
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Types of bioequivalence and related statistical considerations.
    Hauck WW; Anderson S
    Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol; 1992 May; 30(5):181-7. PubMed ID: 1592546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparing generic and innovator drugs: a review of 12 years of bioequivalence data from the United States Food and Drug Administration.
    Davit BM; Nwakama PE; Buehler GJ; Conner DP; Haidar SH; Patel DT; Yang Y; Yu LX; Woodcock J
    Ann Pharmacother; 2009 Oct; 43(10):1583-97. PubMed ID: 19776300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Minimum sample size and sampling time requirements for assessment of rifampicin bioequivalence from FDC formulations.
    Agrawal S; Kaur KJ; Singh I; Bhade S; Kaul CL; Panchagnula R
    Int J Tuberc Lung Dis; 2005 Nov; 9(11):1273-80. PubMed ID: 16333937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Assessing individual bioequivalence using the structural equation model.
    Carrasco JL; Jover L
    Stat Med; 2003 Mar; 22(6):901-12. PubMed ID: 12627408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Tests for individual and population bioequivalence based on generalized p-values.
    McNally RJ; Iyer H; Mathew T
    Stat Med; 2003 Jan; 22(1):31-53. PubMed ID: 12486750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Novel methods to assess bioequivalence.
    Karalis V; Symillides M; Macheras P
    Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol; 2011 Jan; 7(1):79-88. PubMed ID: 21118059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. In vitro bioequivalence testing.
    Chow SC; Shao J; Wang H
    Stat Med; 2003 Jan; 22(1):55-68. PubMed ID: 12486751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Estimating treatment means in a mixed-effect ANOVA model for bioequivalence studies.
    Hsuan FC
    Biometrics; 1993 Sep; 49(3):703-13. PubMed ID: 8241367
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The U.S. draft guidance regarding population and individual bioequivalence approaches: comments by a research-based pharmaceutical company.
    Hauschke D; Steinijans VW
    Stat Med; 2000 Oct; 19(20):2769-74. PubMed ID: 11033574
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Presentation of the intrasubject coefficient of variation for sample size planning in bioequivalence studies.
    Hauschke D; Steinijans WV; Diletti E; Schall R; Luus HG; Elze M; Blume H
    Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther; 1994 Jul; 32(7):376-8. PubMed ID: 7952801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Requirements for submission of bioequivalence data; final rule. Final rule.
    Food and Drug Administration, HHS
    Fed Regist; 2009 Jan; 74(11):2849-62. PubMed ID: 19385107
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. On the bioavailability of oral chondroitin sulfate formulations: proposed criteria for bioequivalence studies.
    Vergés J; Castañeda-Hernández G
    Proc West Pharmacol Soc; 2004; 47():50-3. PubMed ID: 15633611
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. An approximate approach to sample size determination in bioequivalence testing with multiple pharmacokinetic responses.
    Tsai CA; Huang CY; Liu JP
    Stat Med; 2014 Aug; 33(19):3300-17. PubMed ID: 24771655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Lack of pharmacokinetic interaction as an equivalence problem.
    Steinijans VW; Hartmann M; Huber R; Radtke HW
    Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol; 1992; 30 Suppl 1():S63-8. PubMed ID: 1601534
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [Methodological and statistical aspects of equivalence and non inferiority trials].
    Elie C; De Rycke Y; Jais JP; Marion-Gallois R; Landais P
    Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique; 2008 Aug; 56(4):267-77. PubMed ID: 18703296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The bootstrap in bioequivalence studies.
    Pigeot I; Hauschke D; Shao J
    J Biopharm Stat; 2011 Nov; 21(6):1126-39. PubMed ID: 22023681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Rapidly disintegrating risperidone in subjects with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder: a summary of ten phase I clinical trials assessing taste, tablet disintegration time, bioequivalence, and tolerability.
    Thyssen A; Remmerie B; D'Hoore P; Kushner S; Mannaert E
    Clin Ther; 2007 Feb; 29(2):290-304. PubMed ID: 17472821
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.