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 *

145 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35303757)

  • 1. Trapezoid bioequivalence: A rational bioavailability evaluation approach on account of the pharmaceutical-driven balance of population average and variability.
    Soufsaf S; Nekka F; Li J
    CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol; 2022 Apr; 11(4):482-493. PubMed ID: 35303757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Cascade Impactor Equivalence Testing: Comparison of the Performance of the Modified Chi-Square Ratio Statistic (mCSRS) with the Original CSRS and EMA's Average Bioequivalence Approach.
    Kurumaddali A; Christopher D; Sandell D; Strickland H; Morgan B; Bulitta J; Wiggenhorn C; Stein S; Lyapustina S; Hochhaus G
    AAPS PharmSciTech; 2019 Jul; 20(6):249. PubMed ID: 31286316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A Novel Simulation-Based Approach for Comparing the Population Against Average Bioequivalence Statistical Test for the Evaluation of Nasal Spray Products on Spray Pattern and Droplet Size Distribution Parameters.
    Grmaš J; Lužar-Stiffler V; Dreu R; Injac R
    AAPS PharmSciTech; 2019 Jan; 20(1):38. PubMed ID: 30604193
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. [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]  

  • 6. Assessment of Prescribability and Switchability by Using Multiple Bioequivalence Assessment Approaches.
    Micheal F; Sayana M; Prasad R; Motial BM
    Drug Metab Lett; 2021; 14(2):141-151. PubMed ID: 33745439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Performance of the Population Bioequivalence (PBE) Statistical Test with Impactor Sized Mass Data.
    Chen S; Morgan B; Beresford H; Burmeister Getz E; Christopher D; Långström G; Strickland H; Wiggenhorn C; Lyapustina S
    AAPS PharmSciTech; 2019 Aug; 20(7):296. PubMed ID: 31444601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Population and individual bioequivalence: lessons from real data and simulation studies.
    Zariffa NM; Patterson SD
    J Clin Pharmacol; 2001 Aug; 41(8):811-22. PubMed ID: 11504268
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Current Regulatory Standpoint on Evaluating the Bioequivalence of Different Classes of Generic Drugs - Is the Evaluation in the Right Direction?
    Micheal F; Sayana M; Motial BM
    Curr Drug Metab; 2019; 20(10):835-844. PubMed ID: 31589117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Likelihood approach for evaluating bioequivalence of highly variable drugs.
    Du L; Choi L
    Pharm Stat; 2015; 14(2):82-94. PubMed ID: 25408492
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Between-Batch Bioequivalence (BBE): a Statistical Test to Evaluate In Vitro Bioequivalence Considering the Between-Batch Variability.
    Bodin J; Liandrat S; Kocevar G; Petitcolas C
    AAPS J; 2020 Sep; 22(5):119. PubMed ID: 32910283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Evaluation of bioequivalence for highly variable drugs with scaled average bioequivalence.
    Tothfalusi L; Endrenyi L; Arieta AG
    Clin Pharmacokinet; 2009; 48(11):725-43. PubMed ID: 19817502
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Prescribability and switchability of highly variable drugs and drug products.
    Midha KK; Rawson MJ; Hubbard JW
    J Control Release; 1999 Nov; 62(1-2):33-40. PubMed ID: 10518632
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. [Application of multilevel models in the evaluation of bioequivalence (II).].
    Liu QL; Shen ZZ; Li XS; Chen F; Yang M
    Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi; 2010 Mar; 31(3):333-9. PubMed ID: 20510066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Alternative confidence intervals for the assessment of bioequivalence in four-period cross-over designs.
    Quiroz J; Ting N; Wei GC; Burdick RK
    Stat Med; 2002 Jul; 21(13):1825-47. PubMed ID: 12111892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. PhRMA perspective on population and individual bioequivalence.
    Barrett JS; Batra V; Chow A; Cook J; Gould AL; Heller AH; Lo MW; Patterson SD; Smith BP; Stritar JA; Vega JM; Zariffa N
    J Clin Pharmacol; 2000 Jun; 40(6):561-70. PubMed ID: 10868305
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. An individual bioequivalence criterion: regulatory considerations.
    Chen ML; Patnaik R; Hauck WW; Schuirmann DJ; Hyslop T; Williams R
    Stat Med; 2000 Oct; 19(20):2821-42. PubMed ID: 11033578
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.