Cited by 2,696Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsBiosimilars and Bioanalytical MethodsPharmaceutical studies and practices

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A comparison of the Two One-Sided Tests Procedure and the Power Approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability

Open access
Schuirmann, Donald J.·1987·Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics

Abstract

The statistical test of hypothesis of no difference between the average bioavailabilities of two drug formulations, usually supplemented by an assessment of what the power of the statistical test would have been if the true averages had been inequivalent, continues to be used in the statistical analysis of bioavailability/bioequivalence studies. In the present article, this Power Approach (which in practice usually consists of testing the hypothesis of no difference at level 0.05 and requiring an estimated power of 0.80) is compared to another statistical approach, the Two One-Sided Tests Procedure, which leads to the same conclusion as the approach proposed by Westlake based on the usual (shortest) 1-2 alpha confidence interval for the true average difference. It is found that for the specific choice of alpha = 0.05 as the nominal level of the one-sided tests, the two one-sided tests procedure has uniformly superior properties to the power approach in most cases. The only cases where the power approach has superior properties when the true averages are equivalent correspond to cases where the chance of concluding equivalence with the power approach when the true averages are not equivalent exceeds 0.05. With appropriate choice of the nominal level of significance of the one-sided tests, the two one-sided tests procedure always has uniformly superior properties to the power approach. The two one-sided tests procedure is compared to the procedure proposed by Hauck and Anderson.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf01068419

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 8 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 501–600 of 1,005

Metadata

Authors
Schuirmann, D. J.
Affiliations
United States Food and Drug Administration (US)
Corresponding author
Schuirmann, Donald J.
Venue
Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics
Published
1987-12
Volume
15
Issue
6
Pages
657-680
ISSN
0090-466X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2037698344
Cited by
2,696
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 229 · 2025: 113 · 2024: 97 · 2023: 91 · 2022: 101 · 2021: 104 · 2020: 115 · 2019: 106 · 2018: 112 · 2017: 89 · 2016: 75 · 2015: 65 · 2014: 86 · 2013: 69 · 2012: 74
FWCI
14.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Biosimilars and Bioanalytical Methods
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pharmaceutical studies and practices
Keywords
bioequivalence, statistical power, bioequivalence testing, confidence intervals, type I error, drug formulation
MeSH terms
Biological Availability, Models, Biological, Pharmacokinetics, Statistics as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review