Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25403847›Full record

ArticleClinical pharmacokinetics2015

Comparing dosage adjustment methods for once-daily tobramycin in paediatric and adolescent patients with cystic fibrosis.

Stefanie Hennig, Franziska Holthouse, Christine E Staatz

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. An Introduction to Machine Learning.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2020
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stefanie HennigSchool of Pharmacy, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia, s.hennig@uq.edu.au.
Franziska Holthouse
Christine E Staatz
University of Queensland · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesSeveral dosage adjustment methods are currently available to individualize intravenous tobramycin dosing. This study compared different methods in terms of their recommendations for dosage adjustment, their estimation of patients' pharmacokinetic parameter values and their ability to predict subsequent observed tobramycin concentrations following once-daily tobramycin treatment in children and adolescents with cystic fibrosis.

methodsRetrospective data from 172 patients treated at the Royal Children's Hospital (Brisbane, QLD, Australia) were analysed. To be included in the analysis, each patient had to have at least one pair of tobramycin plasma concentration-time measurements recorded over a dosing interval. One or both of the concentrations in the paired set were applied in each of the following dosage adjustment methods: (i) the Therapeutic Guidelines Aminoglycoside nomogram; (ii) the Massie nomogram; (iii) log-linear regression analysis; and two Bayesian forecasting software programs: (iv) TCIWorks and (v) DoseMe. All methods were compared in regard to their recommendations for tobramycin dosage adjustment. The latter three methods were also examined in terms of estimated pharmacokinetic parameter values and their ability to predict subsequent observed tobramycin concentrations.

resultsThe Therapeutic Guidelines nomogram recommended significantly greater mean doses for dosage adjustment (27.0 mg/kg) compared with all other methods (p ≤ 0.01), which gave similar mean dose recommendations (11.6-14.6 mg/kg); however, >20 % differences in doses on an individual level were seen on 20-35 % of occasions across all methods. The log-linear regression analysis method and the two Bayesian forecasting methods (TCIWorks and DoseMe) showed negligible bias but imprecision of around 20 % in predicting subsequent observed tobramycin concentrations. The Bayesian forecasting methods showed no significant difference in mean dose recommendations when using either one or two concentration measurements but increased imprecision in predicting subsequent observed tobramycin concentrations.

conclusionThe log-linear regression method and Massie nomogram are likely to be suitable alternative methods for tobramycin dosage adjustment when Bayesian forecasting software is unavailable. The Therapeutic Guidelines nomogram should not be used to aid dose adjustment of tobramycin therapy in children with cystic fibrosis.

Indexed as

AdolescentAnti-Bacterial AgentsBayes TheoremChildChild, PreschoolCystic FibrosisDose-Response Relationship, DrugDrug Administration ScheduleFemaleHumansInjections, IntravenousLinear ModelsMaleNomogramsRetrospective StudiesTobramycinAnti-Bacterial AgentsTobramycin

Identifiers

PMID25403847
OpenAlexW2007022867

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.