ReviewClinical pharmacokinetics2018
A Review of the Methods and Associated Mathematical Models Used in the Measurement of Fat-Free Mass.
Review in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of body mass-related covariates for rifampicin pharmacokinetics in healthy Caucasian volunteers.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2024Trial
- Letter to the Editor: Lean-Body Mass-Guided Heparin Dosing: A Pharmacokinetic Imperative.Hospital pharmacy · 2026Article
- Spotlight commentary: Changes in pharmacokinetics following significant weight loss.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Article
- Kinetic Modeling for BT200 to Predict the Level of Plasma-Derived Coagulation Factor VIII in Humans.The AAPS journal · 2024Article
- Pharmacokinetics in Critically Ill Children with Acute Kidney Injury.Paediatric drugs · 2023Review
- Considerations for Intravenous Anesthesia Dose in Obese Children: Understanding PKPD.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Optimal dosing of enoxaparin in overweight and obese children.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Article
- Official Position of the Brazilian Association of Bone Assessment and Metabolism (ABRASSO) on the evaluation of body composition by densitometry-part II (clinical aspects): interpretation, reporting, and special situations.Advances in rheumatology (London, England) · 2022Article
- Rapid Standardized CT-Based Method to Determine Lean Body Mass SUV for PET-A Significant Improvement Over Prediction Equations.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Characterizing Pharmacokinetics in Children With Obesity-Physiological, Drug, Patient, and Methodological Considerations.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Review
- Worse capecitabine treatment outcome in patients with a low skeletal muscle mass is not explained by altered pharmacokinetics.Cancer medicine · 2021Article
- Estimation of Body Fat Percentage for Clinical Pharmacokinetic Studies in Children.Clinical and translational science · 2021Article
- An Extension of Janmahasatian's Fat-Free Mass Model for Universal Application Across Populations of Different Ethnicities.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2020Article
- Body composition and mortality in the general population: A review of epidemiologic studies.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fat-free mass (FFM) represents the lean component of the body devoid of fat. It has been shown to be a useful predictor of drug dose requirements, particularly in obesity where the excess fat mass does not contribute to drug clearance. However, measuring FFM involves complex and/or expensive experimental methodologies that preclude their use in routine clinical practice. Thus, models to predict FFM from readily measurable variables, such as body weight and height, have been developed and are used in both population pharmacokinetic modelling and clinical practice. In this review, methods used to measure FFM are explained and compared in terms of their assumptions, precision, and limitations. These methods are broadly classified into six different principles: densitometry, hydrometry, bioimpedance, whole-body counting, dual energy X-ray absorptiometry, and medical imaging. They vary in their processes and key biological assumptions that are often not applicable in certain populations (e.g. children, elderly, and certain disease states). This review provides a summary of the various methods of FFM measurement and estimation, and links these methods to a scientific framework to help clinicians and researchers understand the usefulness and potential limitations of these methods.
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.