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 *

138 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1925168)

  • 41. Bioavailability and bioequivalence of two oral formulations of alendronate sodium 70 mg: an open-label, randomized, two-period crossover comparison in healthy Korean adult male volunteers.
    Rhim SY; Park JH; Park YS; Lee MH; Kim DS; Shaw LM; Yang SC; Kang JS
    Clin Ther; 2009 May; 31(5):1037-45. PubMed ID: 19539104
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Mean difference vs. variability reduction: tradeoffs in aggregate measures for individual bioequivalence. FDA Individual Bioequivalence Working Group.
    Hauck WW; Chen ML; Hyslop T; Patnaik R; Schuirmann D; Williams R
    Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther; 1996 Dec; 34(12):535-41. PubMed ID: 8996848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Bayesian modeling of multivariate average bioequivalence.
    Ghosh P; Gönen M
    Stat Med; 2008 Jun; 27(13):2402-19. PubMed ID: 18095275
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. On TIER method for assessment of individual bioequivalence.
    Ju HL
    J Biopharm Stat; 1997 Mar; 7(1):63-85. PubMed ID: 9056589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. A two one-sided tests procedure for assessment of individual bioequivalence.
    Liu J; Chow SC
    J Biopharm Stat; 1997 Mar; 7(1):49-61. PubMed ID: 9056588
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Testing bioequivalence for multiple formulations with power and sample size calculations.
    Zheng C; Wang J; Zhao L
    Pharm Stat; 2012; 11(4):334-41. PubMed ID: 22692852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Pharmacokinetic comparisons between two formulations containing 100 mg of miglitol in healthy male Korean volunteers: a randomized, open-label, single-dose, two-period, two-sequence crossover bioequivalence study.
    Choi HG; Jeon JY; Im YJ; Kim Y; Jang H; Kang S; Kim KH; Chae SW; Lee SY; Kim MG
    Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther; 2014 Jan; 52(1):55-63. PubMed ID: 24290415
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Model-based analyses of bioequivalence crossover trials using the stochastic approximation expectation maximisation algorithm.
    Dubois A; Lavielle M; Gsteiger S; Pigeolet E; Mentré F
    Stat Med; 2011 Sep; 30(21):2582-600. PubMed ID: 21793036
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Average bioequivalence for two-sequence two-period crossover design with incomplete data.
    Lee JY; Kim BC; Park SG
    J Biopharm Stat; 2005; 15(5):857-67. PubMed ID: 16078389
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Evaluation of direct curve comparison metrics applied to pharmacokinetic profiles and relative bioavailability and bioequivalence.
    Marston SA; Polli JE
    Pharm Res; 1997 Oct; 14(10):1363-9. PubMed ID: 9358548
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Considerations for metabolite pharmacokinetic data in bioavailability/bioequivalence assessments. Overview of the recent trends.
    Srinivas NR
    Arzneimittelforschung; 2009; 59(4):155-65. PubMed ID: 19517891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Bioequivalence evaluation of sparse sampling pharmacokinetics data using bootstrap resampling method.
    Shen M; Machado SG
    J Biopharm Stat; 2017; 27(2):257-264. PubMed ID: 27906608
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. A Novel Approach to Testing for Average Bioequivalence Based on Modeling the Within-Period Dependence Structure.
    Chandrasekhar R; Shi Y; Hutson AD; Wilding GE
    J Biopharm Stat; 2015; 25(6):1320-38. PubMed ID: 25671781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Group sequential extensions of a standard bioequivalence testing procedure.
    Gould AL
    J Pharmacokinet Biopharm; 1995 Feb; 23(1):57-86. PubMed ID: 8576845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Relative bioavailability of two oral formulations of piroxicam 20 mg: a single-dose, randomized-sequence, open-label, two-period crossover comparison in healthy Mexican adult volunteers.
    Palma-Aguirre JA; Lopez-Gamboa M; Cariño L; Burke-Fraga V; González-de la Parra M
    Clin Ther; 2010 Feb; 32(2):357-64. PubMed ID: 20206793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Sex Effect on Average Bioequivalence.
    Ibarra M; Vázquez M; Fagiolino P
    Clin Ther; 2017 Jan; 39(1):23-33. PubMed ID: 28034518
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. The bioequivalence of highly variable drugs and drug products.
    Midha KK; Rawson MJ; Hubbard JW
    Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther; 2005 Oct; 43(10):485-98. PubMed ID: 16240706
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Quantitative assessment of the switchability of generic products.
    Karalis V; Bialer M; Macheras P
    Eur J Pharm Sci; 2013 Nov; 50(3-4):476-83. PubMed ID: 23981332
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Bias of two one-sided tests procedures in assessment of bioequivalence.
    Liu JP; Weng CS
    Stat Med; 1995 Apr; 14(8):853-61. PubMed ID: 7644864
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. On assessment of bioequivalence under a higher-order crossover design.
    Chow SC; Liu JP
    J Biopharm Stat; 1992; 2(2):239-56. PubMed ID: 1300216
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.