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.
45. Increasing impact of quantitative methods and modeling in establishment of bioequivalence and characterization of drug delivery. Yoon M; Babiskin A; Hu M; Wu F; Raney SG; Fang L; Zhao L CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol; 2023 May; 12(5):552-555. PubMed ID: 36756902 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
46. [Clinical pharmacology--current problems and perspectives]. Modr Z Cas Lek Cesk; 1973 Jun; 112(26):803-6. PubMed ID: 4718375 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
47. Practical application of statistical models aimed at assessing bioequivalence through network meta-analysis. Messori A Eur J Clin Pharmacol; 2014 Dec; 70(12):1527-8. PubMed ID: 25228252 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
48. [Methodological and organizational aspects of polycentric research]. Lucchelli PE; Motolese M Boll Chim Farm; 1972 Feb; 111(2):83-92. PubMed ID: 5045535 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
49. [Bedside testing of drugs]. Munch Med Wochenschr; 1966 Sep; 108(38):1887-93. PubMed ID: 4870040 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
50. Uncertainty as to the acceptance or rejection of the presence of an effect in relation to the number of observations in an experiment. Rümke CL Triangle; 1968; 8(7):284-9. PubMed ID: 4886391 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
51. Comments on 'Multiplicity adjustments in testing for bioequivalence'. Stat Med; 2016 Jun; 35(14):2479-80. PubMed ID: 27250861 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
52. [The problem of "cheap preparations"]. Kampffmeyer H ZFA (Stuttgart); 1980 Nov; 56(33):2268-70. PubMed ID: 7467795 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
53. Establishing therapeutic equivalency. What is a clinically significant difference? Detsky AS; Sackett DL Arch Intern Med; 1986 May; 146(5):861-2. PubMed ID: 3963974 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
54. [Minimal requirements of clinical testing]. Wohlzogen FX Subsid Med; 1975; 1-2():17-21. PubMed ID: 1114845 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
55. Onset and duration: measurement and analysis. Laska EM; Siegel C; Sunshine A Clin Pharmacol Ther; 1991 Jan; 49(1):1-5. PubMed ID: 1988234 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
56. A Case Study for Critical Reagent Qualification for Ligand Binding Assays Using Equivalence Test Methodology. Niemuth NA; Triplett CA; Anderson MS; Sankovich KA; Rudge TL AAPS J; 2023 Sep; 25(5):89. PubMed ID: 37715073 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Bayesian Hodges-Lehmann tests for statistical equivalence in the two-sample setting: Power analysis, type I error rates and equivalence boundary selection in biomedical research. Kelter R BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 Aug; 21(1):171. PubMed ID: 34404344 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. The logic of equivalence testing and its use in laboratory medicine. Ialongo C Biochem Med (Zagreb); 2017 Feb; 27(1):5-13. PubMed ID: 28392720 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Group sequential extensions of a standard bioequivalence testing procedure. Gould AL J Pharmacokinet Biopharm; 1995 Feb; 23(1):57-86. PubMed ID: 8576845 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Comparative bioavailability study of two haloperidol decanoate containing products. van Weringh G; Komen BJ; Thieme RE; van der Hoeven RT; Vos T Pharm World Sci; 1994 Dec; 16(6):243-7. PubMed ID: 7889022 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]