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 *

277 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30370634)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Two-stage designs for cross-over bioequivalence trials.
    Kieser M; Rauch G
    Stat Med; 2015 Jul; 34(16):2403-16. PubMed ID: 25809815
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Bioequivalence and intrasubject variability.
    Liu JP
    J Biopharm Stat; 1991; 1(2):205-19. PubMed ID: 1844697
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Optimal adaptive sequential designs for crossover bioequivalence studies.
    Xu J; Audet C; DiLiberti CE; Hauck WW; Montague TH; Parr AF; Potvin D; Schuirmann DJ
    Pharm Stat; 2016; 15(1):15-27. PubMed ID: 26538182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Bioequivalence trials with the incomplete 3 x 3 crossover design.
    Lim NK; Park SG; Stanek E
    Biom J; 2005 Oct; 47(5):635-43. PubMed ID: 16385904
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Sequential design approaches for bioequivalence studies with crossover designs.
    Potvin D; DiLiberti CE; Hauck WW; Parr AF; Schuirmann DJ; Smith RA
    Pharm Stat; 2008; 7(4):245-62. PubMed ID: 17710740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparison of the reference scaled bioequivalence semi-replicate method with other approaches: focus on human exposure to drugs.
    Karalis V; Symillides M; Macheras P
    Eur J Pharm Sci; 2009 Aug; 38(1):55-63. PubMed ID: 19524039
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Reference tables for the intrasubject coefficient of variation in bioequivalence studies.
    Steinijans VW; Sauter R; Hauschke D; Diletti E; Schall R; Luus HG; Elze M; Blume H; Hoffmann C; Franke G
    Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther; 1995 Aug; 33(8):427-30. PubMed ID: 8556220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Additional results for 'Sequential design approaches for bioequivalence studies with crossover designs'.
    Montague TH; Potvin D; Diliberti CE; Hauck WW; Parr AF; Schuirmann DJ
    Pharm Stat; 2012; 11(1):8-13. PubMed ID: 21308974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Blinded sample size re-estimation in crossover bioequivalence trials.
    Golkowski D; Friede T; Kieser M
    Pharm Stat; 2014; 13(3):157-62. PubMed ID: 24715672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Inflation of the type I error: investigations on regulatory recommendations for bioequivalence of highly variable drugs.
    Wonnemann M; Frömke C; Koch A
    Pharm Res; 2015 Jan; 32(1):135-43. PubMed ID: 25033764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A preliminary model to avoid the overestimation of sample size in bioequivalence studies.
    Ramírez E; Abraira V; Guerra P; Borobia AM; Duque B; López JL; Mosquera B; Lubomirov R; Carcas AJ; Frías J
    Drug Res (Stuttg); 2013 Feb; 63(2):98-103. PubMed ID: 23427051
    [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. Use of the repeated cross-over designs in assessing bioequivalence.
    Liu JP
    Stat Med; 1995 May 15-30; 14(9-10):1067-78; discussion 1079-80. PubMed ID: 7569501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Interim analysis of binary outcome data in clinical trials: a comparison of five estimators.
    Lu QS; Chow SC; Tse SK
    J Biopharm Stat; 2019; 29(2):400-410. PubMed ID: 30599798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.