Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10100300›Full record

ArticlePharmaceutical research1999

Modeling of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) relationships: concepts and perspectives.

H Derendorf, B Meibohm

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmaceutical research, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 105 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
105citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

105 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. 75 Years of Mathematical Oncology.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

45 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

H DerendorfDepartment of Pharmaceutics, College of Pharmacy, University of Florida, Gainesville 32610, USA. hartmut@cop.health.ufl.edu
B Meibohm

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD)-modeling links dose-concentration relationships (PK) and concentration-effect relationships (PD), thereby facilitating the description and prediction of the time course of drug effects resulting from a certain dosing regimen. PK/PD-modeling approaches can basically be distinguished by four major attributes. The first characterizes the link between measured drug concentration and the response system, direct link versus indirect link. The second considers how the response system relates effect site concentration to the observed outcome, direct versus indirect response. The third regards what clinically or experimentally assessed information is used to establish the link between concentration and effect, hard link versus soft link. And the fourth considers the time dependency of pharmacodynamic model parameters, distinguishing between time-variant versus time-invariant. Application of PK/PD-modeling concepts has been identified as potentially beneficial in all phases of preclinical and clinical drug development. Although today predominantly limited to research, broader application of PK/PD-concepts in clinical therapy will provide a more rational basis for patient-specific dosage individualization and may thus guide applied pharmacotherapy to a higher level of performance.

Indexed as

PharmacokineticsPharmacologyDose-Response Relationship, DrugHumansModels, BiologicalOutcome Assessment, Health CareTime Factors

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Texttitle and abstract
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.