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 *

127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 6644568)

  • 1. Bayesian approach to bioequivalence assessment: an example.
    Fluehler H; Grieve AP; Mandallaz D; Mau J; Moser HA
    J Pharm Sci; 1983 Oct; 72(10):1178-81. PubMed ID: 6644568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Bayesian modeling of multivariate average bioequivalence.
    Ghosh P; Gönen M
    Stat Med; 2008 Jun; 27(13):2402-19. PubMed ID: 18095275
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A Bayesian approach to bioequivalence for the 2 x 2 changeover design.
    Selwyn MR; Dempster AP; Hall NR
    Biometrics; 1981 Mar; 37(1):11-21. PubMed ID: 7018605
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Bayesian approach to average bioequivalence using Bayes' factor.
    Ghosh P; Khattree R
    J Biopharm Stat; 2003 Nov; 13(4):719-34. PubMed ID: 14584718
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Sample sizes for bioequivalence studies.
    Metzler CM
    Stat Med; 1991 Jun; 10(6):961-9; discussion 969-70. PubMed ID: 1876786
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A semi-parametric Bayesian approach to average bioequivalence.
    Ghosh P; Rosner GL
    Stat Med; 2007 Mar; 26(6):1224-36. PubMed ID: 16832840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Use of Bayesian methods for multivariate bioequivalence measures.
    Molina de Souza R; Achcar JA; Martinez EZ
    J Biopharm Stat; 2009; 19(1):42-66. PubMed ID: 19127466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A new PK equivalence test for a bridging study.
    Novick SJ; Zhang X; Yang H
    J Biopharm Stat; 2016; 26(5):992-1002. PubMed ID: 26882145
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Sample size determination for bioequivalence assessment by means of confidence intervals.
    Diletti E; Hauschke D; Steinijans VW
    Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol; 1991 Jan; 29(1):1-8. PubMed ID: 2004861
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A Bayesian equivalency test for two independent binomial proportions.
    Kawasaki Y; Shimokawa A; Yamada H; Miyaoka E
    J Biopharm Stat; 2016; 26(4):781-9. PubMed ID: 26322683
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Bayesian Approach to Establish Bioequivalence: Why and How?
    Peck CC; Campbell G
    Clin Pharmacol Ther; 2019 Feb; 105(2):301-303. PubMed ID: 30666630
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [Comparison of the results obtained using the test of hypothesis, confidence intervals, and Bayesian analysis in the evaluation of bioequivalence].
    Ohki T; Ueda Y; Suzuki T
    Yakugaku Zasshi; 1985 Aug; 105(8):796-800. PubMed ID: 4087155
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A distribution-free procedure for the statistical analysis of bioequivalence studies.
    Hauschke D; Steinijans VW; Diletti E
    Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol; 1992; 30 Suppl 1():S37-43. PubMed ID: 1601530
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Joint equivalence of means and variances of two populations.
    Grieve AP
    J Biopharm Stat; 1998 Jul; 8(3):377-90. PubMed ID: 9741854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. MW/Pharm, an integrated software package for drug dosage regimen calculation and therapeutic drug monitoring.
    Proost JH; Meijer DK
    Comput Biol Med; 1992 May; 22(3):155-63. PubMed ID: 1617949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The use of asymmetric distributions in average bioequivalence.
    de Souza RM; Achcar JA; Martinez EZ; Mazucheli J
    Stat Med; 2016 Jul; 35(15):2525-42. PubMed ID: 26840012
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Mean difference vs. variability reduction: tradeoffs in aggregate measures for individual bioequivalence. FDA Individual Bioequivalence Working Group.
    Hauck WW; Chen ML; Hyslop T; Patnaik R; Schuirmann D; Williams R
    Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther; 1996 Dec; 34(12):535-41. PubMed ID: 8996848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. [Review and use of decision rules for bioequivalence trials].
    Nicolas P; Tod M; Petitjean O
    Therapie; 1993; 48(1):15-22. PubMed ID: 8356540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.