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 *

169 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31505986)

  • 21. Sample size reestimation and Bayesian predictive probability for single-arm clinical trials with a time-to-event endpoint using Weibull distribution with unknown shape parameter.
    Waleed M; He J; Phadnis MA
    J Biopharm Stat; 2024 Jul; 34(4):469-487. PubMed ID: 37545144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Sample Size Calculation: Inaccurate A Priori Assumptions for Nuisance Parameters Can Greatly Affect the Power of a Randomized Controlled Trial.
    Tavernier E; Giraudeau B
    PLoS One; 2015; 10(7):e0132578. PubMed ID: 26173007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Generics and cost-effective prescribing in Belgium: does bioequivalence always translate in therapeutic equivalence?
    Dupont AG; Heller F
    Acta Clin Belg; 2009; 64(5):406-14. PubMed ID: 19999388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. Sample size re-estimation in cluster randomization trials.
    Lake S; Kammann E; Klar N; Betensky R
    Stat Med; 2002 May; 21(10):1337-50. PubMed ID: 12185888
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Sample Size Determination and Study Design Impact on Dose-Scale Pharmacodynamic Bioequivalence: a Case Study Using Orlistat.
    Xu L; Li S; Wu W; Cheng Z; Xie F
    AAPS J; 2024 Jul; 26(4):77. PubMed ID: 38960976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Testing multiple primary endpoints in clinical trials with sample size adaptation.
    Liu Y; Hu M
    Pharm Stat; 2016; 15(1):37-45. PubMed ID: 26607410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. On sample size estimation and re-estimation adjusting for variability in confirmatory trials.
    Wu PS; Lin M; Chow SC
    J Biopharm Stat; 2016; 26(1):44-54. PubMed ID: 26378970
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Generic antiepileptic drugs-Safe or harmful in patients with epilepsy?
    Holtkamp M; Theodore WH
    Epilepsia; 2018 Jul; 59(7):1273-1281. PubMed ID: 29894004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Estimation of causal effects in clinical endpoint bioequivalence studies in the presence of intercurrent events: noncompliance and missing data.
    Lou Y; Jones MP; Sun W
    J Biopharm Stat; 2019; 29(1):151-173. PubMed ID: 29995564
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Frequency estimator for assessing of follow-on biologics.
    Lu Y; Zhang ZZ; Chow SC
    J Biopharm Stat; 2014; 24(6):1280-97. PubMed ID: 25072640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Statistical assessment of biosimilarity based on the relative distance between follow-on biologics for binary endpoints.
    Shin W; Kang SH
    J Biopharm Stat; 2016; 26(2):227-39. PubMed ID: 25372220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. Potential concerns about generic substitution: bioequivalence versus therapeutic equivalence of different amlodipine salt forms.
    Meredith PA
    Curr Med Res Opin; 2009 Sep; 25(9):2179-89. PubMed ID: 19601710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Bayesian design for two-arm randomized Phase II clinical trials with endpoints from the exponential family using multiple constraints.
    Jiang W; Wick JA; He J; Mahnken JD; Mayo MS
    J Biopharm Stat; 2018; 28(5):824-839. PubMed ID: 29172970
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Three-arm noninferiority trials with a prespecified margin for inference of the difference in the proportions of binary endpoints.
    Hida E; Tango T
    J Biopharm Stat; 2013; 23(4):774-89. PubMed ID: 23799810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Influence of point estimates and study power of bioequivalence studies on establishing bioequivalence between generics by adjusted indirect comparisons.
    Gwaza L; Gordon J; Potthast H; Welink J; Leufkens H; Stahl M; García-Arieta A
    Eur J Clin Pharmacol; 2015 Sep; 71(9):1083-9. PubMed ID: 26105964
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Current regulatory approaches of bioequivalence testing.
    Karalis V; Macheras P
    Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol; 2012 Aug; 8(8):929-42. PubMed ID: 22681436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Bioequivalence requirements for generic products.
    Nation RL; Sansom LN
    Pharmacol Ther; 1994; 62(1-2):41-55. PubMed ID: 7991647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.