ReviewClinical pharmacokinetics2000
Limited sampling strategies.
Review in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Omeprazole limited sampling strategies to predict area under the concentration-time curve ratios: implications for cytochrome P450 2C19 and 3A phenotyping.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2012Trial
- S-warfarin limited sampling strategy with a population pharmacokinetic approach to estimate exposure and cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C9 activity in healthy adults.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2021Article
- Population Pharmacokinetics and Limited Sampling Strategy for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Polymyxin B in Chinese Patients With Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Article
- Limited sampling strategy for the estimation of the area under the concentration-time curve for ganciclovir in Chinese adult renal allograft recipients.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2019Article
- Bayesian estimation of cyclosporin exposure for routine therapeutic drug monitoring in kidney transplant patients.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
Indexed as
Identifiers
11069216What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.