Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16284917›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2005

Some considerations on the design of population pharmacokinetic studies.

Stephen Duffull, Tim Waterhouse, John Eccleston

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–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

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Population pharmacokinetics of lamotrigine in Indian epileptic patients.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2013
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Optimal sample selection applied to information rich, dense data.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Generating Robust and Informative NonclinicalAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2019
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Optimal study design for pioglitazone in septic pediatric patients.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2011
    Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors.

Stephen DuffullSchool of Pharmacy, University of Queensland, Brisbane, 4072, Australia. sduffull@pharmacy.uq.edu.au
Tim Waterhouse
John Eccleston

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The goal of this manuscript is to introduce a framework for consideration of designs for population pharmacokinetic orpharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic studies. A standard one compartment pharmacokinetic model with first-order input and elimination is considered. A series of theoretical designs are considered that explore the influence of optimizing the allocation of sampling times, allocating patients to elementary designs, consideration of sparse sampling and unbalanced designs and also the influence of single vs. multiple dose designs. It was found that what appears to be relatively sparse sampling (less blood samples per patient than the number of fixed effects parameters to estimate) can also be highly informative. Overall, it is evident that exploring the population design space can yield many parsimonious designs that are efficient for parameter estimation and that may not otherwise have been considered without the aid of optimal design theory.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalPharmacokineticsClinical Trials as TopicDrug Administration RoutesDrug Administration ScheduleDrug EvaluationHumansPatient SelectionPharmaceutical PreparationsResearch DesignSample SizeSampling StudiesSoftwarePharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.