2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpba.2016.03.052
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparative assessment of bioanalytical method validation guidelines for pharmaceutical industry

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

5
71
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 147 publications
(76 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
5
71
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The accuracy was within ±2.55% of the nominal value at each concentration level. According to the United States Food and Drug Administration and European Medical Agency guidelines , all the results were within the acceptable criteria ranges, indicating that the bioanalytical method was accurate, reproducible, and reliable.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 85%
“…The accuracy was within ±2.55% of the nominal value at each concentration level. According to the United States Food and Drug Administration and European Medical Agency guidelines , all the results were within the acceptable criteria ranges, indicating that the bioanalytical method was accurate, reproducible, and reliable.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 85%
“…The precision of the bioanalytical method was considered in terms of repeatability (intraday tests, n = 6) and intermediate precision (interday tests, n = 3) using spiked human plasma samples. The precision and accuracy results obtained were expressed in terms of the relative standard deviation (RSD %) and relative error (RE %), respectively . The stability studies of ARVs included: influence of freezing (−20°C) and thawing cycles (25 ± 3°C), short‐term temperature (12 h on the bench) and long‐term storage at −20°C (two and four days).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Method validation and documentation were performed according to guidelines set by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for bioanalytical method validation [28, 29]. This method was validated for linearity, specificity, intra- and inter-day accuracy and precision, recovery, and stability of the analytes [29, 30].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This method was validated for linearity, specificity, intra- and inter-day accuracy and precision, recovery, and stability of the analytes [29, 30]. Analytical runs included a double blank (without internal standard), a blank (with internal standard), nine calibration standards (0.5 to 1,000 ng/mL), and six sets of QCs: LLOQ QC at 0.5 ng/mL, low QC at 2 ng/mL, medium QCs at 20 and 200 ng/mL, and high QC at 800 ng/mL.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%