ArticleBiologics : targets & therapy2024
Comparison of Innovative and Conventional Methods in Biosimilar Bridging Studies with Multiple References.
Article in Biologics : targets & therapy, 2024. 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.
- Bioequivalence Assessment for Intranasal Rapid-Acting Drug Products.Journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For assessment of biosimilar drug products, if there are multiple-reference products (eg, a US-licensed product and an EU-approved product), a biosimilar bridging study with a 3-way pairwise comparison is often conducted. In our paper, two innovative methods in biosimilar bridging study are compared with the conventional method of pairwise comparisons. For parallel study design, the simultaneous confidence interval (CI) method is compared to the convention method. For crossover study design, the multiplicity-adjusted Schuirmann's two one-sided tests (MATOST) is considered. This paper conclude that the simultaneous CI method achieves the similar statistical power to the conventional approach in biosimilarity assessment. However, the MATOST method using the conservative Holm and Bonferroni approaches is not favorable since it leads to a large sample size although it controls the type I error rate.
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.