ReviewPloS one2014
A review of a priori regression models for warfarin maintenance dose prediction.
Review in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementation of genotype-guided dosing of warfarin with point-of-care genetic testing in three UK clinics: a matched cohort study.BMC medicine · 2019Trial
- Semi-empirical anticoagulation model (SAM): INR monitoring during Warfarin therapy.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2022Article
- Cladding Mode Fitting-Assisted Automatic Refractive Index Demodulation Optical Fiber Sensor Probe Based on Tilted Fiber Bragg Grating and SPR.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Non-genetic factors and polymorphisms in genes CYP2C9 and VKORC1: predictive algorithms for TTR in Brazilian patients on warfarin.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2020Article
- Algorithm for predicting low maintenance doses of warfarin using age and polymorphisms in genes CYP2C9 and VKORC1 in Brazilian subjects.The pharmacogenomics journal · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A number of a priori warfarin dosing algorithms, derived using linear regression methods, have been proposed. Although these dosing algorithms may have been validated using patients derived from the same centre, rarely have they been validated using a patient cohort recruited from another centre. In order to undertake external validation, two cohorts were utilised. One cohort formed by patients from a prospective trial and the second formed by patients in the control arm of the EU-PACT trial. Of these, 641 patients were identified as having attained stable dosing and formed the dataset used for validation. Predicted maintenance doses from six criterion fulfilling regression models were then compared to individual patient stable warfarin dose. Predictive ability was assessed with reference to several statistics including the R-square and mean absolute error. The six regression models explained different amounts of variability in the stable maintenance warfarin dose requirements of the patients in the two validation cohorts; adjusted R-squared values ranged from 24.2% to 68.6%. An overview of the summary statistics demonstrated that no one dosing algorithm could be considered optimal. The larger validation cohort from the prospective trial produced more consistent statistics across the six dosing algorithms. The study found that all the regression models performed worse in the validation cohort when compared to the derivation cohort. Further, there was little difference between regression models that contained pharmacogenetic coefficients and algorithms containing just non-pharmacogenetic coefficients. The inconsistency of results between the validation cohorts suggests that unaccounted population specific factors cause variability in dosing algorithm performance. Better methods for dosing that take into account inter- and intra-individual variability, at the initiation and maintenance phases of warfarin treatment, are needed.
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.