Skip to main content
. 2021 Dec 24;38(12):1991–2001. doi: 10.1007/s11095-021-03149-y

Table IV.

Distribution of Replies From Respondents About Methods of Analysis to Focus on Now. Respondents Were Allowed to Select Up To Two Methods of Analysis. Values are Percentages of Respondents Who Selected the Specified Methods of Analysis. Across All Respondents (n = 252; 89.7% Response Rate), There Were 446 Selections (Average 1.77 Per Respondent, With range 0–2). Across POCs (n = 47; 100% response rate), there were 86 selections (average 1.83 per Respondent, With Range 1–2). Across Non-POCs (n = 205; 87.6% Response rate), There Were 360 Selections (average 1.76 Per Respondent, With Range 0–2). POCs and Non-POCs Did Not Differ in Any Response Related to Methods of Analysis (Wald Chi-square p > 0.03)

Methods of analysis All respondents (n = 252) Points-of-Contact (POCs) (n = 47) Non-POCs (n = 205)
Locally-acting physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modeling 49.2% 51.1% 48.8%
Oral absorption models and bioequivalence 36.1% 34.0% 36.6%
Data analytics and machine learning 32.5% 36.2% 31.7%
Patient substitution of generic drugs 26.2% 19.1% 27.8%
Quantitative clinical pharmacology 17.9% 19.1% 17.6%
Other analytical techniques and/or drug or drug product 15.1% 23.4% 13.2%