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 *

227 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8996848)

  • 61. Innovative approaches for demonstration of bioequivalence: the US FDA perspective.
    Zhang X; Zheng N; Lionberger RA; Yu LX
    Ther Deliv; 2013 Jun; 4(6):725-40. PubMed ID: 23738669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 62. Evaluation of parametric and nonparametric two one-sided tests procedures for assessing bioequivalence of average bioavailability.
    Liu JP; Weng CS
    J Biopharm Stat; 1993 Mar; 3(1):85-102. PubMed ID: 8485538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 63. Scale-up of immediate release oral solid dosage forms. AAPS/FDA Workshop Committee Report.
    Skelly JP; Van Buskirk GA; Savello DR; Amidon GL; Arbit HM; Dighe S; Fawzi MB; Gonzalez MA; Malick AW; Malinowski H
    J Parenter Sci Technol; 1993; 47(2):52-6. PubMed ID: 8515344
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 64. The basis for individual bioequivalence. FDA Population and Individual Bioequivalence Working Group.
    Williams RL; Patnaik RN; Chen ML
    Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet; 2000; 25(1):13-7. PubMed ID: 11032083
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 65. Considerable cost savings through the analysis of pooled plasma samples in bioequivalence studies that fail to show bioequivalence.
    Hundt HK; Schall R; Luus HG; Müller FO
    Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol; 1993 Jul; 31(7):331-6. PubMed ID: 8370632
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 66. Exploring the relationships between scaled bioequivalence limits and within-subject variability.
    Symillides M; Karalis V; Macheras P
    J Pharm Sci; 2013 Jan; 102(1):296-301. PubMed ID: 23160971
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 67. Outlier detection in bioavailability/bioequivalence studies.
    Chow SC; Tse SK
    Stat Med; 1990 May; 9(5):549-58. PubMed ID: 2135947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 68. Levothyrox
    Concordet D; Gandia P; Montastruc JL; Bousquet-Mélou A; Lees P; Ferran A; Toutain PL
    Clin Pharmacokinet; 2019 Jul; 58(7):827-833. PubMed ID: 30949873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 69. Factors to be considered in the evaluation of bioavailability and bioequivalence of topical formulations.
    Borsadia S; Ghanem AH; Seta Y; Higuchi WI; Flynn GL; Behl CR; Shah VP
    Skin Pharmacol; 1992; 5(3):129-45. PubMed ID: 1445703
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 70. Consideration of individual bioequivalence.
    Anderson S; Hauck WW
    J Pharmacokinet Biopharm; 1990 Jun; 18(3):259-73. PubMed ID: 2380920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 71. Impact of data base structure in a successful in vitro-in vivo correlation for pharmaceutical products.
    Roudier B; Davit B; Schütz H; Cardot JM
    AAPS J; 2015 Jan; 17(1):24-34. PubMed ID: 25387995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 72. Estimation of direct formulation effect under log-normal distribution in bioavailability/bioequivalence studies.
    Liu JP; Weng CS
    Stat Med; 1992 May; 11(7):881-96. PubMed ID: 1604068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 73. Japanese guidance on bioavailability and bioequivalence.
    Aoyagi N
    Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet; 2000; 25(1):28-31. PubMed ID: 11032086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 74. Individual bioequivalence. New concepts in the statistical assessment of bioequivalence metrics. FDA Individual Bioequivalence Working Group.
    Patnaik RN; Lesko LJ; Chen ML; Williams RL
    Clin Pharmacokinet; 1997 Jul; 33(1):1-6. PubMed ID: 9250419
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 75. A retrospective assessment of the 75/75 rule in bioequivalence.
    Dobbins TW; Thiyagarajan B
    Stat Med; 1992 Jul; 11(10):1333-42. PubMed ID: 1518994
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 76. Evaluating average bioequivalence using methods for high variability drugs: a case study.
    Sanchez MP; Gomez C; Carrasco JL; Ocana J; von Plessing C; Godoy CG; Reinbach R; Godoy R
    Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther; 2008 Oct; 46(10):527-37. PubMed ID: 18826867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 77. 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]  

  • 78. Novel bioequivalence approach for narrow therapeutic index drugs.
    Yu LX; Jiang W; Zhang X; Lionberger R; Makhlouf F; Schuirmann DJ; Muldowney L; Chen ML; Davit B; Conner D; Woodcock J
    Clin Pharmacol Ther; 2015 Mar; 97(3):286-91. PubMed ID: 25669762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 79. Synergic development of pharmacokinetics and bioanalytical methods as support of pharmaceutical research.
    Marzo M; Ciccarelli R; Di Iorio P; Giuliani P; Caciagli F; Marzo A
    Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol; 2016 Jun; 29(2):168-79. PubMed ID: 26684641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 80. Interpatient variability in bioavailability is related to the extent of absorption: implications for bioavailability and bioequivalence studies.
    Hellriegel ET; Bjornsson TD; Hauck WW
    Clin Pharmacol Ther; 1996 Dec; 60(6):601-7. PubMed ID: 8988062
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.