Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27884052›Full record

ArticleCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2017

Model Evaluation of Continuous Data Pharmacometric Models: Metrics and Graphics.

T H T Nguyen, M-S Mouksassi, N Holford, N Al-Huniti, I Freedman, A C Hooker, J John, M O Karlsson, D R Mould, J J Pérez Ruixo and 8 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 242 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
242citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

242 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Quantitative evaluation of multiple treatment regimens for treatment-resistant depression.The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology · 2025
    Pooled it
  5. Joint longitudinal model-based meta-analysis of FEVJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2023
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Model-Based Meta-analysis of Rifampicin Exposure and Mortality in Indonesian Tuberculous Meningitis Trials.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2020
    Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Pharmacokinetics of Intraperitoneal Lidocaine for Sustained Postoperative Analgesia in Adults.European journal of drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics · 2025
    Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

182 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

18 authors.

T H T NguyenINSERM, IAME, UMR 1137, Paris, France, Université Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France.
M-S MouksassiCertara Strategic Consulting, Montréal, Canada.
N HolfordDepartment of Pharmacology and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
N Al-HunitiQuantitative Clinical Pharmacology, AstraZeneca, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA.
I FreedmanDr Immanuel Freedman Inc., Harleysville, Pennsylvania, USA.
A C HookerDepartment of Pharmaceutical Biosciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
J JohnCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC, USA.
M O KarlssonDepartment of Pharmaceutical Biosciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
D R MouldProjections Research Inc., Phoenixville, Pennsylvania, USA.
J J Pérez RuixoThe Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, Belgium.
E L PlanPharmetheus, Uppsala, Sweden.
R SavicDepartment of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, University of California - San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
J G C van HasseltDivision of Pharmacology, Leiden Academic Centre for Drug Research, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands.
B WeberBoehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ridgefield, Connecticut, USA.
C ZhouGenentech, San Francisco, California, USA.
E CometsINSERM, IAME, UMR 1137, Paris, France, Université Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France.
F MentréINSERM, IAME, UMR 1137, Paris, France, Université Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France.
Model Evaluation Group of the International Society of Pharmacometrics (ISoP) Best Practice Committee

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article represents the first in a series of tutorials on model evaluation in nonlinear mixed effect models (NLMEMs), from the International Society of Pharmacometrics (ISoP) Model Evaluation Group. Numerous tools are available for evaluation of NLMEM, with a particular emphasis on visual assessment. This first basic tutorial focuses on presenting graphical evaluation tools of NLMEM for continuous data. It illustrates graphs for correct or misspecified models, discusses their pros and cons, and recalls the definition of metrics used.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalPharmacokineticsFemaleHumansMaleNonlinear DynamicsWarfarinWarfarin

Identifiers

PMID27884052
PMCPMC5321813

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.