A Generalized Pivotal Quantity Approach to Analytical Method Validation Based on Total Error

References

1. 1.↵
   USP. General information <1225> validation of compendial methods. United States Pharmacopeia XXVI; 2003; pp 2439–2442.
2. 2.↵
   ICH. ICH Q2(R1) validation of analytical procedures: text and methodology. 2005.
3. 3.↵
   Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry, analytical procedures and methods validation for drugs and biologics 2015, http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance.
4. 4.↵
   Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry (draft), bioanalytical methods validation 2013, http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance.
5. 5.↵
   1. Hoffman D.,
   2. Kringle R.

   A total error approach for the validation of quantitative analytical methods. Pharm. Res. 2007, 24(6), 1157–1164.

   OpenUrlPubMed
6. 6.↵
   USP. General information <1210> statistical tools for analytical procedure validation. Pharmacopeia Forum 2013, 40 (5).
7. 7.↵
   1. Kringle R. O.,
   2. Khan-Malek R. C.

   A statistical assessment of the recommendations from a conference on analytical methods validation in bioavailability, bioequivalence, and pharmacokinetic studies. Proceedings of the Biopharmaceutical Section of the American Statistical Association 1994, 510–514.
8. 8.↵
   1. Findlay J. W. A.,
   2. Smith W. C.,
   3. Lee J. W.,
   4. Nordblom G. D.,
   5. Das I.,
   6. DeSilva B. S.,
   7. Kahn M. N.,
   8. Bowsher R. R.

   Validation of immunoassays for bioanalysis: a pharmaceutical industry perspective. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2000, 21(6), 1249–1273.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
9. 9.↵
   1. Miller K.,
   2. Bowsher R.,
   3. Celniker A.,
   4. Gibbons J.,
   5. Gupta S.,
   6. Lee J. W.,
   7. Swanson S. J.,
   8. Smith W. C.,
   9. Weiner R. S.

   Workshop on bioanalytical methods validation for macromolecules: summary report. Pharm. Res. 2001, 18 (9),1373–1383.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. 10.↵
    1. Boulanger B.,
    2. Chiap P.,
    3. Dewé W.,
    4. Crommen J.,
    5. Hubert Ph

    An analysis of the SFSTP guide on validation of chromatographic bioanalytical methods: progresses and limitations. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2003, 32 (4–5), (753–765).
11. 11.↵
    1. DeSilva B.,
    2. Smith W.,
    3. Weiner R.,
    4. Kelley M.,
    5. Smolec J.,
    6. Lee B.,
    7. Kahn M.,
    8. Tacey R.,
    9. Hill H.,
    10. Celniker A.

    Recommendations for the bioanalytical method validation of ligand-binding assays to support pharmacokinetic assessments of macromolecules. Pharm. Res. 2003, 20(11), 1885–1900.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
12. 12.↵
    1. Lee J.,
    2. Devanarayan V.,
    3. Barrett Y.,
    4. Weiner R.,
    5. Allinson J.,
    6. Fountain S.,
    7. Keller S.,
    8. Weinryb I.,
    9. Green M.,
    10. Duan L.,
    11. Rogers J.,
    12. Millham R.,
    13. O'Brien P.,
    14. Sailstad J.,
    15. Khan M.,
    16. Ray C.,
    17. Wagner J.

    Fit-for-purpose method development and validation for successful biomarker measurement, Pharm. Res. 2006, 23(2), 312–328.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
13. 13.↵
    1. Hubert P.,
    2. Nguyen-Huu J. J.,
    3. Boulanger B.,
    4. Chapuzet E.,
    5. Chiap P.,
    6. Cohen N.,
    7. Compagnon P. A.,
    8. Dewé W.,
    9. Feinberg M.,
    10. Lallier M.,
    11. Laurentie M.,
    12. Mercier N.,
    13. Muzard G.,
    14. Nivet C.,
    15. Valat L.

    Harmonization of strategies for the validation of quantitative analytical procedures: a SFSTP proposal—part I. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2004, 36(3), 579–586.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Govaerts B.,
    2. Dewé W.,
    3. Maumy M,
    4. Boulanger B.

    Pre-study analytical method validation: comparison of four alternative approaches based on quality-level estimation and tolerance intervals. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 2008, 24(6), 557–680.

    OpenUrl
15. 15.↵
    1. Boulanger B.,
    2. Dewé W.,
    3. Gibert A.,
    4. Govaerts B.,
    5. Maumy-Bertrand M.

    Risk management for analytical methods based on the total error concept: concilating the objectives of the pre-study and in-study validation phases. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 2007, 86(2), 198–207.

    OpenUrl
16. 16.↵
    1. Weerahandi S.

    Generalized confidence intervals. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1993, 88, 899–905.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
17. 17.↵
    1. Mee R.

    Estimation of the percentage of a normal distribution lying outside a specified interval. Communication in Statistics–Theory and Methods 1988, 17 (5),1465–1479.

    OpenUrl
18. 18.↵
    1. Hoffman D.,
    2. Kringle R.

    Two-sided tolerance intervals for balanced and unbalanced random effects models. J. Biopharm. Stat. 2005, 15(2), 283–293.

    OpenUrlPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Mee R.

    β-expectation and β-content tolerance limits for balanced one-way ANOVA random model. Technometrics 1984, 26(3), 251–254.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
20. 20.↵
    1. Weerahandi S.

    Generalized Inference in Repeated Measures: Exact Methods in MANOVA and Mixed Models. John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ; 2004, Vol. 500.
21. 21.↵
    1. Krishnamoorthy K.,
    2. Mathew T.

    One-sided tolerance limits in balanced and unbalanced one-way random models based on generalized confidence limits. Technometrics 2004, 46(1), 44–52.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
22. 22.↵
    1. Liao C. T.,
    2. Lin T. Y.,
    3. Iyer H. K.

    One- and two-sided tolerance intervals for general balanced mixed models and unbalanced one-way random models. Technometrics 2005, 47(3), 323–335.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science