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 *

156 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32910283)

  • 21. Risk-Based Bioequivalence Recommendations for Antiepileptic Drugs.
    Li Z; Fang L; Jiang W; Kim MJ; Zhao L
    Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep; 2017 Sep; 17(11):82. PubMed ID: 28929357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Case studies, practical issues and observations on population and individual bioequivalence.
    Zariffa NM; Patterson SD; Boyle D; Hyneck M
    Stat Med; 2000 Oct; 19(20):2811-20. PubMed ID: 11033577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Generic lamotrigine versus brand-name Lamictal bioequivalence in patients with epilepsy: A field test of the FDA bioequivalence standard.
    Ting TY; Jiang W; Lionberger R; Wong J; Jones JW; Kane MA; Krumholz A; Temple R; Polli JE
    Epilepsia; 2015 Sep; 56(9):1415-24. PubMed ID: 26201987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. Batch-to-batch pharmacokinetic variability confounds current bioequivalence regulations: A dry powder inhaler randomized clinical trial.
    Burmeister Getz E; Carroll KJ; Jones B; Benet LZ
    Clin Pharmacol Ther; 2016 Sep; 100(3):223-31. PubMed ID: 27037630
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. [Applying multilevel models in evaluation of bioequivalence (I)].
    Liu QL; Shen ZZ; Chen F; Li XS; Yang M
    Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi; 2009 Dec; 30(12):1302-6. PubMed ID: 20193320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Performance properties of the population bioequivalence approach for in vitro delivered dose for orally inhaled respiratory products.
    Morgan B; Strickland H
    AAPS J; 2014 Jan; 16(1):89-100. PubMed ID: 24249218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. A replicate study design for testing bioequivalence: a case study on two desmopressin nasal spray preparations.
    Joukhadar C; Schenk B; Kaehler ST; Kollenz CJ; Bauer P; Müller M; Eichler HG
    Eur J Clin Pharmacol; 2003 Nov; 59(8-9):631-6. PubMed ID: 14564429
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Prediction of pharmacokinetic studies outcome for locally acting nasal sprays by using different in vitro methods.
    Sibinovska N; Božič D; Bošković Ribarski M; Kristan K
    Int J Pharm; 2021 May; 601():120569. PubMed ID: 33812972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Simulation Informed Design and Performance of In Vitro Bioequivalence Trials for Particle Size Distributions.
    Ganley WJ; Shur J; Price R
    AAPS J; 2020 Oct; 22(6):139. PubMed ID: 33104941
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Kullback-Leibler divergence for evaluating bioequivalence.
    Dragalin V; Fedorov V; Patterson S; Jones B
    Stat Med; 2003 Mar; 22(6):913-30. PubMed ID: 12627409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Comparison of average, scaled average, and population bioequivalence methods for assessment of highly variable drugs: an experience with doxifluridine in beagle dogs.
    Baek IH; Lee BY; Kang W; Kwon KI
    Eur J Pharm Sci; 2010 Jan; 39(1-3):175-80. PubMed ID: 19961933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. A Bioequivalence Approach for Generic Narrow Therapeutic Index Drugs: Evaluation of the Reference-Scaled Approach and Variability Comparison Criterion.
    Jiang W; Makhlouf F; Schuirmann DJ; Zhang X; Zheng N; Conner D; Yu LX; Lionberger R
    AAPS J; 2015 Jul; 17(4):891-901. PubMed ID: 25840883
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.