[1. L. M. Vercaigni and G. G. Zhanel, Clinical significance of bioequivalence and interchangeability of narrow therapeutic range drugs: Focus on warfarins, J. Pharm. PharmSci. 1 (1998) 92-94.]Search in Google Scholar
[2. A. K. Wittkowsky, Generic warfarin: Implications for patient care, Pharmacotherapy 17 (1997) 640-643; DOI: 10.1002/j.1875-9114.1997.tb03741.x.]Search in Google Scholar
[3. A. Jaffer and L. Bragg, Practical tips for Warfarin dosing and monitoring, Clev. Clin. J. Med. 70 (2003) 361-371; DOI: 10.3949/ccjm.70.4.361.10.3949/ccjm.70.4.361]Search in Google Scholar
[4. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Court decision in re: Warfarin sodium antitrust litigation, 391 F.3d 516, December 2004; https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/391/391.F3d.516.02-3758.02-3757.02-3755.02-3603.html; access date October 15, 2013.]Search in Google Scholar
[5. H. Halkin, A. Shapiro, D. Kurnik, R. Loebstein, V. Shalev and E. Kokia, Increased warfarin doses and decreased international normalized ratio response after nationwide generic switching, Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 74 (2003) 215-221; DOI: 10.1016/S0009-9236(03)00166-8.10.1016/S0009-9236(03)00166-8]Search in Google Scholar
[6. C. N. Swenson and G. Fundak, Observational cohort study of switching warfarin sodium products in a managed care organization, Am. J. Health-Syst. Pharm. 57 (2000) 452-455.10.1093/ajhp/57.5.452]Search in Google Scholar
[7. A. E. Sawoniak, A. F. Shalansky, P. J. Zed and R. Sundreji, Formulary considerations related to warfarin interchangeability, Can. J. Hosp. Pharm. 55 (2002) 215-218.]Search in Google Scholar
[8. A. Franc, B. Žaludek, R. Goněc, M. Maleček, H. Tkadlečková and A. Petrovičová, Method of Producing Dosage Units of a Solid Drug Form Containing Warfarin Sodium Salts as Active Component, WO Pat. 2005034919 17 October 2003.]Search in Google Scholar
[9. A. Franc, M. Rabišková and R. Gonĕc, Impregnation: a progressive method in the production of solid dosage forms with low content of poorly soluble drugs, Eur. J. Parent Pharm. Sci. 16 (2011) 85-93.]Search in Google Scholar
[10. L. Z. Benet and J. E. Goyan, Bioequivalence and narrow therapeutic index drug, Pharmacotherapy 15 (1995) 433-440; DOI: 10.1002/j.1875-9114.1995.tb04379.x.]Search in Google Scholar
[11. The »Barr Laboratories« Court decision, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civil action No. 92-1744, January 2004; http://www.navigategmp.com/pdf/BarrLabs.pdf; access date October 19, 2013.]Search in Google Scholar
[12. J. Berman, D. E. Elinski, C. R. Gonzales, J. D. Hofer, P. J. Jimenez, J. A. Planchard, R. J. Tlachac and P. F. Vogel, Blend uniformity analysis: Validation and in-process testing. Technical Report No. 25. PDA (Parenteral Drug Association), PDA J. Pharm. Sci. Technol. 51 (1997) S1-99.]Search in Google Scholar
[13. FDA Guidance for industry, ANDAs: Blend Uniformity Analysis, Draft guidance, August 1999; http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/992635gd.pdf; access date October 19, 2013.]Search in Google Scholar
[14. FDA Guidance for industry, Powder Blends and Finished Dosage Units - Stratified In-process Dosage Unit Sampling and Assessment, Draft guidance, October 2003; http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/03d-0493-gdl0001.pdf; access date October 19, 2013.]Search in Google Scholar
[15. FDA Guidance for industry, Powder Blends and Finished Dosage Units - In-process Bend and Dosage Unit Inspection (Sampling and Evaluation) for Content Uniformity, Revised draft guidance, January 2004; http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/04/jan04/013004/03D-0493_emc-000003-01.pdf; access date October 19, 2013.]Search in Google Scholar
[16. FDA reference material, Oral Solid Dosage Forms Pre/post Approval Issues (1/94), Guide to inspections of oral solid dosage forms, pre/post approval issues for development and validation, January 1994. http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Inspections/InspectionGuides/ucm074928.htm; access date 19 October, 2013.]Search in Google Scholar
[17. P. Cholayudth, Establishing acceptance limits for probability of passing multiple stage tests in process validation through a process capability approach, J. Valid. Tech. 15 (2009) 77-90.]Search in Google Scholar
[18. J. S. Bergum and H. Li, Acceptance limits for the new ICH USP 29 content-uniformity test, Pharm. Tech. 31 (2007) 90-100.]Search in Google Scholar
[19. J. Kushner, Incorporating Turbula mixers into a blending scale-up model for evaluating the effect of magnesium stearate on tablet tensile strength and bulk specific volume, Int. J. Pharm. 429 (2012) 1-11; DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2012.02.040.10.1016/j.ijpharm.2012.02.040]Search in Google Scholar
[20. J. Zheng, Formulation and Analytical Development for Low-Dose Oral Drug Products, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey 2009, pp. 169-196.10.1002/9780470386361]Search in Google Scholar
[21. J. Hilden, M. Schrad, J. Kuehne-Willmore and J. Sloan, A first-principles model for prediction of product dose uniformity based on drug substance particle size distribution, J. Pharm. Sci. 101 (2012) 2364-2371; DOI: 10.1002/jps.23130.10.1002/jps.23130]Search in Google Scholar
[22. Y. Pu, M. Mazumder and C. Cooney, Effects of electrostatic charging on pharmaceutical powder blending homogeneity, J. Pharm. Sci. 98 (2009) 2412-2421; DOI: 10.1002/jps.21595.10.1002/jps.21595]Search in Google Scholar
[23. J. Muselík and A. Franc, Evaluation of content uniformity of tablets with a low content of the active ingredient with a narrow therapeutic index, Ces. Slov. Farm. 61 (2012) 271-275.]Search in Google Scholar
[24. D. M. Taylor, Measuring techniques for electrostatistics, Electrostatics 51-52 (2001) 502-508.10.1016/S0304-3886(01)00107-3]Search in Google Scholar
[25. H. Martens and M. Martens, Modified jack-knife estimation of parameter uncertainty in bilinear modeling by partial least squares regression (PLSR), Food Qual. Prefer. 11 (2000) 5-16; DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(99)00039-7.10.1016/S0950-3293(99)00039-7]Search in Google Scholar
[26. A. Franc, J. Muselík, R. Máslová and J. Hadrabová, Content uniformity of warfarin-containing mixtures and tablets, Ces. Slov. Farm. 62 (2013) 177-181.]Search in Google Scholar
[27. M. Perrault, F. Bertrand and J. Chaouki, An investigation of magnesium stearate mixing in a Vblender through gamma-ray detection, Powder Technol. 200 (2010) 234-245.10.1016/j.powtec.2010.02.030]Search in Google Scholar
[28. H. Yang, How many batches are needed for process validation under the new FDA Guidance?, PDA J. Pharm. Sci. Technol. 67 (2013) 53-62; DOI: 10.5731/pdajpst.2013.00902.10.5731/pdajpst.2013.0090223385564]Search in Google Scholar
[29. Camo software website, Classical DoE methods and PLS-ANOVA, Specific methods for analyzing designed data; http://www.camo.com/resources/classical-doe-methods-pls-anova.html; access date October 19, 2013.]Search in Google Scholar
[30. Camo software. User’s manual to Unscrambler X software, v.1.3. ]Search in Google Scholar