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 *

110 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22432131)

  • 1. The effect of variability and carryover on average bioequivalence assessment: a simulation study.
    Sánchez MP; Ocaña J; Carrasco JL
    Pharm Stat; 2011; 10(2):135-42. PubMed ID: 22432131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Carryover negligibility and relevance in bioequivalence studies.
    Ocaña J; Sanchez O MP; Carrasco JL
    Pharm Stat; 2015; 14(5):400-8. PubMed ID: 26175204
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Controlling the type I error rate in two-stage sequential adaptive designs when testing for average bioequivalence.
    Maurer W; Jones B; Chen Y
    Stat Med; 2018 May; 37(10):1587-1607. PubMed ID: 29462835
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. An approach for sample size determination of average bioequivalence based on interval estimation.
    Chiang C; Hsiao CF
    Stat Med; 2017 Mar; 36(7):1068-1082. PubMed ID: 28070984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of models for average bioequivalence in replicated crossover designs.
    Willavize SA; Morgenthien EA
    Pharm Stat; 2006; 5(3):201-11. PubMed ID: 17080753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. On statistical power for average bioequivalence testing under replicated crossover designs.
    Wan H; Chow SC
    J Biopharm Stat; 2002 Aug; 12(3):295-309. PubMed ID: 12448572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Effect of length of sampling schedule and washout interval on magnitude of drug carryover from period 1 to period 2 in two-period, two-treatment bioequivalence studies and its attendant effects on determination of bioequivalence.
    Dhariwal K; Jackson A
    Biopharm Drug Dispos; 2003 Jul; 24(5):219-28. PubMed ID: 12784322
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Controlling type 1 error rate for sequential, bioequivalence studies with crossover designs.
    Rasmussen HE; Ma R; Wang JJ
    Pharm Stat; 2019 Jan; 18(1):96-105. PubMed ID: 30370634
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Testing for bioequivalence of highly variable drugs from TR-RT crossover designs with heterogeneous residual variances.
    Kang Q; Vahl CI
    Pharm Stat; 2017 Sep; 16(5):361-377. PubMed ID: 28620937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Equivalence assessment for interchangeability based on two-sided tests.
    Dong X; Tsong Y
    J Biopharm Stat; 2014; 24(6):1312-31. PubMed ID: 25032976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Two-stage designs versus European scaled average designs in bioequivalence studies for highly variable drugs: Which to choose?
    Molins E; Cobo E; Ocaña J
    Stat Med; 2017 Dec; 36(30):4777-4788. PubMed ID: 28853164
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The role of the upper sample size limit in two-stage bioequivalence designs.
    Karalis V
    Int J Pharm; 2013 Nov; 456(1):87-94. PubMed ID: 23954235
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Evaluation of the bioequivalence of highly-variable drugs and drug products.
    Tothfalusi L; Endrenyi L; Midha KK; Rawson MJ; Hubbard JW
    Pharm Res; 2001 Jun; 18(6):728-33. PubMed ID: 11474774
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Bioequivalence tests based on individual estimates using non-compartmental or model-based analyses: evaluation of estimates of sample means and type I error for different designs.
    Dubois A; Gsteiger S; Pigeolet E; Mentré F
    Pharm Res; 2010 Jan; 27(1):92-104. PubMed ID: 19876723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A comparison of group sequential and fixed sample size designs for bioequivalence trials with highly variable drugs.
    Knahl SIE; Lang B; Fleischer F; Kieser M
    Eur J Clin Pharmacol; 2018 May; 74(5):549-559. PubMed ID: 29362819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. An iterative method to protect the type I error rate in bioequivalence studies under two-stage adaptive 2×2 crossover designs.
    Molins E; Labes D; Schütz H; Cobo E; Ocaña J
    Biom J; 2021 Jan; 63(1):122-133. PubMed ID: 33000873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. On the leveling-off properties of the new bioequivalence limits for highly variable drugs of the EMA guideline.
    Karalis V; Symillides M; Macheras P
    Eur J Pharm Sci; 2011 Nov; 44(4):497-505. PubMed ID: 21945487
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.