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 *

152 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9250419)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Biometrical evaluation of bioequivalence trials using a bootstrap individual direct curve comparison method.
    Zintzaras E; Bouka P; Kowald A
    Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet; 2002; 27(1):11-6. PubMed ID: 11996322
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Statistical aspects of bioequivalence testing between two medicinal products.
    Zintzaras E
    Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet; 2005; 30(1-2):41-6. PubMed ID: 16010860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Evaluation of direct curve comparison metrics applied to pharmacokinetic profiles and relative bioavailability and bioequivalence.
    Marston SA; Polli JE
    Pharm Res; 1997 Oct; 14(10):1363-9. PubMed ID: 9358548
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Connections between average and individual bioequivalence.
    Munk A
    Stat Med; 2000 Oct; 19(20):2843-54. PubMed ID: 11033579
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Secondary metrics for the assessment of bioequivalence.
    Endrenyi L; Tothfalusi L
    J Pharm Sci; 1997 Mar; 86(3):401-2. PubMed ID: 9050814
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [Assessment of bioequivalence].
    Aoyagi N
    Eisei Shikenjo Hokoku; 1996; (114):141-2. PubMed ID: 9037886
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A new approach for outliers in a bioavailability/bioequivalence study.
    Liao JJ
    J Biopharm Stat; 2007; 17(3):393-405. PubMed ID: 17479389
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Individual bioequivalence revisited.
    Chen ML; Lesko LJ
    Clin Pharmacokinet; 2001; 40(10):701-6. PubMed ID: 11707058
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. On TIER method for assessment of individual bioequivalence.
    Ju HL
    J Biopharm Stat; 1997 Mar; 7(1):63-85. PubMed ID: 9056589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Tests for individual and population bioequivalence based on generalized p-values.
    McNally RJ; Iyer H; Mathew T
    Stat Med; 2003 Jan; 22(1):31-53. PubMed ID: 12486750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [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]  

  • 16. A three-step procedure for assessing bioequivalence in the general mixed model framework.
    Vuorinen J; Turunen J
    Stat Med; 1996 Dec; 15(24):2635-55. PubMed ID: 8981677
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Assessing bioequivalence using genomic data.
    Chow SC; Shao J; Li L
    J Biopharm Stat; 2004 Nov; 14(4):869-80. PubMed ID: 15587969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Extension to the use of tolerance intervals for the assessment of individual bioequivalence.
    Esinhart JD; Chinchilli VM
    J Biopharm Stat; 1994 Mar; 4(1):39-52. PubMed ID: 8019583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.