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 *

177 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8356559)

  • 1. [Value of the theory of the optimal sampling scheme for bioequivalence studies].
    Tod M; Petitjean O; Nicolas P
    Therapie; 1993; 48(1):7-13. PubMed ID: 8356559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Optimal sampling times in bioequivalence tests.
    Kong FH; Gonin R
    J Biopharm Stat; 2000 Feb; 10(1):31-44. PubMed ID: 10709799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison of the Bayesian approach and a limited sampling model for the estimation of AUC and Cmax: a computer simulation analysis.
    Mahmood I; Miller R
    Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther; 1999 Sep; 37(9):439-45. PubMed ID: 10507242
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Application of optimal sampling theory to the determination of metacycline pharmacokinetic parameters: effect of model misspecification.
    Tod M; Padoin C; Louchahi K; Moreau-Tod B; Petitjean O; Perret G
    J Pharmacokinet Biopharm; 1994 Apr; 22(2):129-46. PubMed ID: 7815309
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Population pharmacokinetic measures, their estimation and selection of sampling times.
    Fedorov V; Leonov S
    J Biopharm Stat; 2007; 17(5):919-41. PubMed ID: 17885874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Easy-to-use, accurate and flexible individualized Bayesian limited sampling method without fixed time points for ciclosporin monitoring after liver transplantation.
    Langers P; Cremers SC; den Hartigh J; Rijnbeek EM; Ringers J; Lamers CB; van Hoek B
    Aliment Pharmacol Ther; 2005 Mar; 21(5):549-57. PubMed ID: 15740538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Choice of characteristics and their bioequivalence ranges for the comparison of absorption rates of immediate-release drug formulations.
    Schall R; Luus HG; Steinijans VW; Hauschke D
    Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther; 1994 Jul; 32(7):323-8. PubMed ID: 7952792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The development of a standardised screening protocol for the in vivo assessment of rifampicin bioavailability.
    McIlleron H; Gabriels G; Smith PJ; Fourie PB; Ellard GA
    Int J Tuberc Lung Dis; 1999 Nov; 3(11 Suppl 3):S329-35; discussion S351-2. PubMed ID: 10593713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Pharmacokinetics and bioequivalence evaluation of 2 levosulpiride preparations after a single oral dose in healthy male Korean volunteers.
    Cho HY; Moon JD; Lee YB
    Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther; 2004 Mar; 42(3):174-80. PubMed ID: 15049438
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Pharmacokinetic parameters estimation using adaptive Bayesian P-splines models.
    Jullion A; Lambert P; Beck B; Vandenhende F
    Pharm Stat; 2009; 8(2):98-112. PubMed ID: 18481279
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Proposal for a standardised identification of the mono-exponential terminal phase for orally administered drugs.
    Scheerans C; Derendorf H; Kloft C
    Biopharm Drug Dispos; 2008 Apr; 29(3):145-57. PubMed ID: 18098336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effect of length of sampling schedule and washout interval on magnitude of drug carryover from period 1 to period 2 in two-period, two-treatment bioequivalence studies and its attendant effects on determination of bioequivalence.
    Dhariwal K; Jackson A
    Biopharm Drug Dispos; 2003 Jul; 24(5):219-28. PubMed ID: 12784322
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A limited sampling approach in bioequivalence studies: application to long half-life drugs and replicate design studies.
    Mahmood I; Mahayni H
    Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther; 1999 Jun; 37(6):275-81. PubMed ID: 10395118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparing the concentration curves directly in a pharmacokinetics, bioavailability/bioequivalence study.
    Liao JJ
    Stat Med; 2005 Mar; 24(6):883-91. PubMed ID: 15558699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Cmax/AUC is a clearer measure than Cmax for absorption rates in investigations of bioequivalence.
    Endrenyi L; Fritsch S; Yan W
    Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol; 1991 Oct; 29(10):394-9. PubMed ID: 1748540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Optimum experimental designs for properties of a compartmental model.
    Atkinson AC; Chaloner K; Herzberg AM; Juritz J
    Biometrics; 1993 Jun; 49(2):325-37. PubMed ID: 8369370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. An area correction method to reduce intrasubject variability in bioequivalence studies.
    Abdallah HY
    J Pharm Pharm Sci; 1998; 1(2):60-5. PubMed ID: 10945919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of absorption rates in bioequivalence studies of immediate release drug formulations.
    Schall R; Luus HG
    Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol; 1992 May; 30(5):153-9. PubMed ID: 1592542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Curvature-adjusted optimal design of sampling times for the inference of pharmacokinetic compartment models.
    Daimon T; Goto M
    Stat Med; 2007 Jun; 26(14):2799-812. PubMed ID: 17072822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Confidence intervals for ratios of AUCs in the case of serial sampling: a comparison of seven methods.
    Jaki T; Wolfsegger MJ; Ploner M
    Pharm Stat; 2009; 8(1):12-24. PubMed ID: 18407562
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.