ArticleAdvanced pharmaceutical bulletin2014
High-performance liquid chromatographic determination of propofol in human plasma: comparison of different heteroscedastic calibration curve models.
Article in Advanced pharmaceutical bulletin, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effect ofPharmacogenomics and personalized medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to select the best calibration model for determination of propofol plasma concentration by high-performance liquid chromatography method.
methodsDetermination of propofol in plasma after deproteinization with acetonitrile containing thymol (as internal standard) was carried out on a C18 column with a mixture of acetonitrile and trifluoroacetic acid 0.1% (60:40) as mobile phase which delivered at the flow rate of 1.2 mL/minute . Fluorescence detection was done at the excitation and emission wavelengths of 276 and 310 nm, respectively. After fitting different equations to the calibration data using weighted regression, the adequacy of models were assessed by lack-of-fit test, significance of all model parameters, adjusted coefficient of determination (R(2) adjusted) and by measuring the predictive performance with median relative prediction error and median absolute relative prediction error of the validation data set.
resultsThe best model was a linear equation without intercept with median relative prediction error and median absolute relative prediction error of 4.0 and 9.4%, respectively in the range of 10-5000 ng/mL. The method showed good accuracy and precision.
conclusionThe presented statistical framework could be used to choose the best model for heteroscedastic calibration data for analytes like propofol with wide range of expected concentration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.