↓ Skip to main content

An Exact Procedure for the Evaluation of Reference-Scaled Average Bioequivalence

Overview of attention for article published in The AAPS Journal, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
An Exact Procedure for the Evaluation of Reference-Scaled Average Bioequivalence
Published in
The AAPS Journal, January 2016
DOI 10.1208/s12248-016-9873-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laszlo Tothfalusi, Laszlo Endrenyi

Abstract

Reference-scaled average bioequivalence (RSABE) has been recommended by Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and in its closely related form by European Medicines Agency (EMA), for the determination of bioequivalence (BE) of highly variable (HV) and narrow therapeutic index (NTI) drug products. FDA suggested that RSABE be evaluated by an approximating procedure. Development of an alternative, numerically exact approach was sought. A new algorithm, called Exact, was derived for the assessment of RSABE. It is based upon the observation that the statistical model of RSABE follows a noncentral t distribution. The parameters of the distribution were derived for crossover and parallel-group study designs. Simulated BE studies of HV and NTI drugs compared the power and consumer risk of the proposed Exact method with those recommended by FDA and EMA. The Exact method had generally slightly higher power than the FDA approach. The consumer risks of the Exact and FDA procedures were generally below the nominal error risk with both methods except for the partial replicate design under certain heteroscedastic conditions. The estimator of RSABE was biased; simulations demonstrated the appropriateness of Hedges' correction. The FDA approach had another, small but meaningful bias. The confidence intervals of RSABE, based on the derived exact, analytical formulas, are uniformly most powerful. Their computation requires in standard cases only a single-line program script. The algorithm assumes that the estimates of the within-subject variances of both formulations are available. With each algorithm, the consumer risk is higher than 5% when the partial replicate design is applied.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 28 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 17%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Professor 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 7 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 10%
Psychology 2 7%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 5 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 May 2022.
All research outputs
#6,968,903
of 22,851,489 outputs
Outputs from The AAPS Journal
#394
of 1,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,611
of 396,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AAPS Journal
#13
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,851,489 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,287 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 396,361 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.