ArticlePloS one2018
An evaluation roadmap for critical quality attributes from tier 1 in analytical similarity assessment.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Analytical similarity assessment of critical quality attributes (CQAs) serves as a foundation for the development of biosimilar products and facilitates an abbreviated subsequent clinical evaluation. In this study, we establish a statistical evaluation roadmap with statistical approaches for some selected CQAs from Tier 1, because they are most relevant to clinical outcomes and require the most rigorous statistical methods. In the roadmap, we incorporate 3 methods-ranking and tier assignment of quality attributes, the equivalence test, and the Mann-Whitney test for equivalence-that are important to determine analytical similarity between the reference and biosimilar products. For the equivalence test, we develop a power calculation formula based on the two one-sided tests procedure. Exact sample sizes can be numerically calculated. Then, we propose a flexible idea for selecting the number of reference lots (nR) and the number of biosimilar lots (nT) to adjust for serious unbalanced sample sizes. From results of extensive simulations under various parameter settings, we obtain a workable strategy to determine the optimum sample size combination (nT, nR) for the equivalence test of CQAs from Tier 1. R codes are provided to facilitate implementation of the roadmap and corresponding methods in practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.