Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23148919›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2013

External Evaluation of Population Pharmacokinetic Models of Vancomycin in Neonates: The transferability of published models to different clinical settings.

Wei Zhao, Florentia Kaguelidou, Valérie Biran, Daolun Zhang, Karel Allegaert, Edmund V Capparelli, Nick Holford, Toshimi Kimura, Yoke-Lin Lo, José-Esteban Peris and 4 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 112 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

14 authors at 10 institutions in 9 countries.

Wei ZhaoDepartment of Pediatric Pharmacology and Pharmacogenetics, Hôpital Robert Debré, AP-HP, Paris, France; Clinical Investigation Center CIC9202, AP-HP-INSERM, Paris, France.
Florentia Kaguelidou
Valérie Biran
Daolun Zhang
Karel Allegaert
Edmund V Capparelli
Nick Holford
Toshimi Kimura
Yoke-Lin Lo
José-Esteban Peris
Alison Thomson
John N van den Anker
May Fakhoury
Evelyne Jacqz-Aigrain
Hôpital Robert-Debré · FRDélégation Paris 7 · FRDrug Discovery Laboratory (Norway) · NOGeorge Washington University · USKU Leuven · BETokyo Women's Medical University Hospital · JPUniversitat de València · ESUniversity of Auckland · NZUniversity of Malaya · MYWestern Infirmary · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVancomycin is one of the most evaluated antibiotics in neonates using modeling and simulation approaches. However no clear consensus on optimal dosing has been achieved. The objective of the present study was to perform an external evaluation of published models, in order to test their predictive performances in an independent dataset and to identify the possible study-related factors influencing the transferability of pharmacokinetic models to different clinical settings.

methodPublished neonatal vancomycin pharmacokinetic models were screened from the literature. The predictive performance of 6 models was evaluated using an independent dataset (112 concentrations from 78 neonates). The evaluation procedures used simulation-based diagnostics (visual predictive check [VPC] and normalized prediction distribution errors [NPDE]).

resultsDifferences in predictive performances of models for vancomycin pharmacokinetics in neonates were found. The mean of NPDE for 6 evaluated models were 1.35, -0.22, -0.36, 0.24, 0.66, 0.48, respectively. These differences were explained, at least partly, by taking into account the method used to measure serum creatinine concentrations. The adult conversion factor of 1.3 (enzymatic to Jaffé) was tested with an improvement in the VPC and NPDE, but it still need to be evaluated and validated in neonates. Differences were also identified between analytical methods for vancomycin.

conclusionThe importance of analytical techniques for serum creatinine concentrations and vancomycin as a predictor of vancomycin concentrations in neonates has been confirmed. Dosage individualisation of vancomycin in neonates should consider not only patients' characteristics and clinical conditions, but also the methods used to measure serum creatinine and vancomycin.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsModels, BiologicalVancomycinComputer SimulationCreatinineDose-Response Relationship, DrugDrug Administration ScheduleGestational AgeHumansInfant, NewbornPredictive Value of TestsAnti-Bacterial AgentsCreatinineVancomycin

Identifiers

PMID23148919
PMCPMC3612725
OpenAlexW2157059987

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.