Skip to main content
  • Main menu
  • User menu
  • Search

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Accepted Articles
    • Email Alerts
    • RSS
    • Terms of Use
  • About PDA JPST
    • JPST Editors and Editorial Board
    • About/Vision/Mission
    • Paper of the Year
  • Author & Reviewer Resources
    • Author Resources / Submit
    • Reviewer Resources
  • JPST Access and Subscriptions
    • PDA Members
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Nonmember Access
  • Support
    • Join PDA
    • Contact
    • Feedback
    • Advertising
    • CiteTrack
  • .
    • Visit PDA
    • PDA Letter
    • Technical Reports
    • news uPDATe
    • Bookstore

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
PDA Journal of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology
  • .
    • Visit PDA
    • PDA Letter
    • Technical Reports
    • news uPDATe
    • Bookstore
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
PDA Journal of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Accepted Articles
    • Email Alerts
    • RSS
    • Terms of Use
  • About PDA JPST
    • JPST Editors and Editorial Board
    • About/Vision/Mission
    • Paper of the Year
  • Author & Reviewer Resources
    • Author Resources / Submit
    • Reviewer Resources
  • JPST Access and Subscriptions
    • PDA Members
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Nonmember Access
  • Support
    • Join PDA
    • Contact
    • Feedback
    • Advertising
    • CiteTrack
  • Follow pda on Twitter
  • Visit PDA on LinkedIn
  • Visit pda on Facebook
Article CommentaryCommentary

Probability Concepts in Quality Risk Management

H. Gregg Claycamp
PDA Journal of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology January 2012, 66 (1) 78-89; DOI: https://doi.org/10.5731/pdajpst.2012.00801
H. Gregg Claycamp
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Mlodinow L.
    The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives; Vintage Books: New York, 2008.
    Google Scholar
  2. 2.↵
    1. Singpurwalla N. D.,
    2. Wilson A. G.
    Probability, chance and the probability of chance. IIE Transactions 2009, 41 (1),12–22.
    OpenUrlGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.↵
    1. Bernstein P.
    Against the Gods. The Remarkable Story of Risk; John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1996.
    Google Scholar
  4. 4.↵
    1. Visschers V. H.,
    2. Meertens R. M.,
    3. Passchier W. W.,
    4. de Vries N. N.
    Probability information in risk communication: a review of the research literature. Risk Anal. 2009, 29 (2),267–287.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.↵
    1. Gigerenzer G.,
    2. Hertwig R.,
    3. van den Broek E.,
    4. Fasolo B.,
    5. Katsikopoulos K. V.
    “A 30% chance of rain tomorrow”: How does the public understand probabilistic weather forecasts? Risk Anal. 2005, 25 (3),623–629.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.↵
    1. Pearl J.
    Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000.
    Google Scholar
  7. 7.↵
    1. Anonymous
    . “Common Cause and Special Cause”; wikipedia.org. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_cause_and_special_cause (accessed March 21, 2011).
    Google Scholar
  8. 8.↵
    1. Ayyub B. M.
    Risk Analysis in Engineering and Economics; Chapman and Hall/CRC: Boca Raton, FL, 2003.
    Google Scholar
  9. 9.↵
    1. Kaplan S.,
    2. Garrick B. J.
    On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Anal. 1981, 1 (1),11–27.
    OpenUrlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.↵
    Quality Risk Management Q9, ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH), 2005. http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Quality/Q9/Step4/Q9_Guideline.pdf (accessed April 19, 2011).
    Google Scholar
  11. 11.↵
    Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Guidance for Industry Q9 Quality Risk Management. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), 2006.
    Google Scholar
  12. 12.↵
    International Standards Organization (ISO). Application of Risk Management to Medical Devices,International Standard ISO14971:2000.
    Google Scholar
  13. 13.↵
    ISO. Risk Management—Principles and Guidelines. International Standard ISO 31000:2009(E).
    Google Scholar
  14. 14.↵
    1. Aven T.,
    2. Renn O.
    On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain. J. Risk Res. 2009, 12 (1),1–11.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.↵
    1. Hubbard D. G.
    How to Measure Anything; Wiley: New York, 2007.
    Google Scholar
  16. 16.↵
    1. Savage S. L.
    The Flaw of Averages: Why We Underestimate Risk in the Face of Uncertainty; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, 2009.
    Google Scholar
  17. 17.↵
    1. Keeney R.
    Making better decision makers. Decision Anal. 2004, 1 (4),193–204.
    OpenUrlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.↵
    1. Kahneman D.,
    2. Slovic P.,
    3. Tversky A.
    Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1982.
    Google Scholar
  19. 19.↵
    1. Mauboussin M. J.
    Think Twice: Harnessing the Power of Counterintuition; Harvard Business Press: Boston, 2009.
    Google Scholar
  20. 20.↵
    1. Ariely D.
    Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces that Shape Our Decisions; Harper-Collins: New York, 2008.
    Google Scholar
  21. 21.↵
    1. Hubbard D. L.
    The Failure of Risk Management: Why It's Broken and How to Fix It; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, 2009.
    Google Scholar
  22. 22.↵
    1. Jaffe J.,
    2. Stavins R. N.
    On the value of formal assessment of uncertainty in regulatory analysis. Regulation & Governance 2007, 1 (2),154–171.
    OpenUrlGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.↵
    1. Morgan M. G.,
    2. Henrion M.
    Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1990.
    Google Scholar
  24. 24.↵
    1. Keeney R. L.
    Value-Focused Thinking; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1992.
    Google Scholar
  25. 25.↵
    1. Thornton A. C.
    Variation Risk Management. John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, 2004.
    Google Scholar
  26. 26.↵
    1. Claycamp H. G.
    Risk, uncertainty, and process analytical technology. J. Process Anal. Technol. 2006, 3 (2),8–12.
    OpenUrlGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.↵
    ICH. Pharmaceutical Development Q8(R2), ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline, Current Step 4 version, August 2009. http://www.ich.org/products/guidelines/quality/article/quality-guidelines.html (accessed July 20, 2011).
    Google Scholar
  28. 28.↵
    ICH. Development and Manufacture of Drug Substances (Chemical Entities and Biotechnological/Biological Entities), Draft Consensus Guideline, Current Step 2 version, May 2011. http://www.ich.org/products/guidelines/quality/article/quality-guidelines.html (accessed July 20, 2011).
    Google Scholar
  29. 29.↵
    1. Harry M.,
    2. Schroeder R.
    Six Sigma: The Breakthrough Management Strategy Revolutionizing the World's Top Corporations; Currency Press: New York, 2000.
    Google Scholar
  30. 30.↵
    1. Vose D.
    Risk Analysis: A Quantitative Guide, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2000.
    Google Scholar
  31. 31.↵
    1. Claycamp H. G.
    . Perspective on quality risk management of pharmaceutical quality. Drug Information J. 2007, 41 (3),353–367.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.↵
    1. Haimes Y. Y.
    Risk Modeling, Assessment, and Management; John Wiley & Sons: New York, 2004.
    Google Scholar
  33. 33.↵
    1. Linkov I.,
    2. Satterstrom F. K.,
    3. Kiker G.,
    4. Batchelor C.,
    5. Bridges T.,
    6. Ferguson E.
    Comparative risk assessment to multi-criteria decision analysis and adaptive management: recent developments and applications. Environ. Int. 2006, 32 (8),1072–1093.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.↵
    1. Haimes Y. Y.,
    2. Kaplan S.,
    3. Lambert J. H.
    Risk filtering, ranking, and management framework using hierarchical holographic modeling. Risk Anal. 2002, 22 (2),383–397.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.↵
    1. Morgan G. M.,
    2. Florig H. K.,
    3. DeKay M. L.,
    4. Fischbeck P.
    Categorizing risks for risk ranking. Risk Anal. 2000, 20 (1),49–58.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.↵
    1. O'Hagan A.,
    2. Buck C. E.,
    3. Daneshkhah A.,
    4. Eiser J. R.,
    5. Garthwaite P. H.,
    6. Jenkinson D. J.,
    7. Oakley J. E.,
    8. Rakow T.
    Uncertain Judgments: Eliciting Experts' Probabilities; John Wiley & Sons: West Sussex, UK, 2006.
    Google Scholar
  37. 37.↵
    1. Cox L. A. Jr..
    What's wrong with risk matrices? Risk Anal. 2008, 28 (2),497–512.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.↵
    1. Taleb N. N.
    The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. Random House: New York, 2007.
    Google Scholar
  39. 39.↵
    1. Ishikawa K.
    What Is Total Quality Control? The Japanese Way, Lui, D. J., trans.; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1985.
    Google Scholar
  40. 40.↵
    U.S. Department of Energy. DOE Guideline. Root Cause Analysis Guidance Document, Office of Nuclear Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy Safety Policy and Standards: Washington, DC, 1992.
    Google Scholar
  41. 41.↵
    1. Stamatis D. H.
    Failure Mode and Effect Analysis: FMEA from Theory to Execution, 2nd ed.; ASQ Quality Press: Milwaukee, WI, 2003.
    Google Scholar
  42. 42.↵
    1. Rönninger S.,
    2. Holmes M.
    A risk-based approach to scheduling audits. PDA J. Pharm. Sci. Technol. 2009, 63 (6),575–588.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.↵
    1. Tran N. L.,
    2. Hasselbalch B.,
    3. Morgan K.,
    4. Claycamp G.
    Elicitation of expert knowledge about risks associated with pharmaceutical manufacturing processes. Pharmaceutical Engineering 2005, 25 (4),24–38.
    OpenUrlGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.↵
    1. Ayyub B. M.
    Elicitation of Expert Opinions for Uncertainty and Risks; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 2001.
    Google Scholar
  45. 45.↵
    1. Morgan M. G.,
    2. Fischhoff B.,
    3. Bostrom A.,
    4. Atman C. J.
    Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2002.
    Google Scholar
  46. 46.↵
    1. Brafman O.
    Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior; Doubleday: New York, 2008.
    Google Scholar
  47. 47.↵
    1. Dieckmann N. F.,
    2. Slovic P.,
    3. Peters E. M.
    The use of narrative evidence and explicit likelihood by decisionmakers varying in numeracy. Risk Anal. 2009, 29 (10),1473–1488.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.↵
    1. Bond S. D.,
    2. Carlson K. A.,
    3. Keeney R. L.
    Improving the generation of decision objectives. Decision Anal. 2010, 7 (3),238–255.
    OpenUrlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
PreviousNext
Back to top

In This Issue

PDA Journal of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology: 66 (1)
PDA Journal of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology
Vol. 66, Issue 1
January/February 2012
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by Author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Share
Probability Concepts in Quality Risk Management
H. Gregg Claycamp
PDA Journal of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology Jan 2012, 66 (1) 78-89; DOI: 10.5731/pdajpst.2012.00801
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Concepts of Probability
    • Probability in the Language of Risk
    • Probability for the Measurement of Uncertainty
    • Probability Implementation in Various Quality Risk Management Tools
    • Qualitative, Hierarchical Methods
    • Ranking Methods
    • Quantitative Methods
    • Challenges in Probability Judgments
    • Conclusion
    • Conflict of Interest Declaration
    • Acknowledgments
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • A Bayesian Approach to Determination of F, D, and Z Values Used in Steam Sterilization Validation
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • A Risk Based Approach for Pre-Use/Post-Sterilization Integrity Test Simulation During Bacterial Retention Testing as Part of the Process Specific Filter Validation of Sterilizing Grade Filters
  • Challenges and Solutions to Manufacturing of Low-Viscosity, Ultra-High Concentration IgG1 Drug Products: From Late Downstream Process to Final Fill Finish Processing
  • Retrospective Evaluation of Cycled Resin in Viral Clearance Studies - A Multiple Company Collaboration - Post ICH Q5A(R2) Review
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

Readers

  • About
  • Table of Content Alerts/Other Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • Terms of Use
  • Contact Editors

Author/Reviewer Information

  • Author Resources
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Reviewers
  • Contact Editors

Parenteral Drug Association, Inc.

  • About
  • Advertising/Sponsorships
  • Events
  • PDA Bookstore
  • Press Releases

© 2025 PDA Journal of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology Print ISSN: 1079-7440  Digital ISSN: 1948-2124

Powered by HighWire
Alerts for this Article
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email this Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PDA Journal of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Probability Concepts in Quality Risk Management
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PDA Journal of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PDA Journal of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
13 + 2 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Probability Concepts in Quality Risk Management
H. Gregg Claycamp
PDA Journal of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology Jan 2012, 66 (1) 78-89; DOI: 10.5731/pdajpst.2012.00801

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience

By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.