Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17328581›Full record

SynthesisClinical pharmacokinetics2007

Are population pharmacokinetic and/or pharmacodynamic models adequately evaluated? A survey of the literature from 2002 to 2004.

Karl Brendel, Céline Dartois, Emmanuelle Comets, Annabelle Lemenuel-Diot, Christian Laveille, Brigitte Tranchand, Pascal Girard, Céline M Laffont, France Mentré

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 88 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
88citing papers in PubMed, 11 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

88 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Population Pharmacokinetic Studies of Digoxin in Adult Patients: A Systematic Review.European journal of drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics · 2021
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Population Pharmacokinetics of Amikacin in Non-Neonatal Pediatric Patients: A Scoping Review.European journal of drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics · 2026
    Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article

28 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

9 authors.

Karl BrendelINSERM, U738, Paris, France. karlbrendel@gmail.com
Céline Dartois
Emmanuelle Comets
Annabelle Lemenuel-Diot
Christian Laveille
Brigitte Tranchand
Pascal Girard
Céline M Laffont
France Mentré

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Model evaluation is an important issue in population analyses. We aimed to perform a systematic review of all population pharmacokinetic and/or pharmacodynamic analyses published between 2002 and 2004 to survey the current methods used to evaluate models and to assess whether those models were adequately evaluated. We selected 324 articles in MEDLINE using defined key words and built a data abstraction form composed of a checklist of items to extract the relevant information from these articles with respect to model evaluation. In the data abstraction form, evaluation methods were divided into three subsections: basic internal methods (goodness-of-fit [GOF] plots, uncertainty in parameter estimates and model sensitivity), advanced internal methods (data splitting, resampling techniques and Monte Carlo simulations) and external model evaluation. Basic internal evaluation was the most frequently described method in the reports: 65% of the models involved GOF evaluation. Standard errors or confidence intervals were reported for 50% of fixed effects but only for 22% of random effects. Advanced internal methods were used in approximately 25% of models: data splitting was more often used than bootstrap and cross-validation; simulations were used in 6% of models to evaluate models by a visual predictive check or by a posterior predictive check. External evaluation was performed in only 7% of models. Using the subjective synthesis of model evaluation for each article, we judged the models to be adequately evaluated in 28% of pharmacokinetic models and 26% of pharmacodynamic models. Basic internal evaluation was preferred to more advanced methods, probably because the former is performed easily with most software. We also noticed that when the aim of modelling was predictive, advanced internal methods or more stringent methods were more often used.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalPharmacokineticsPopulationAnimalsDatabases, FactualHumansMonte Carlo Method

Identifiers

PMID17328581
PMCPMC2907410

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.