ReviewBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2019
Why maximum tolerated dose?
Review in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Bioaccessibility and Transformation of Conjugated Benzotriazole Phytometabolites during In Vitro Digestion: Implications for Exposure from Recycled Irrigation Water.Environmental science & technology · 2025Article
- Unveiling Palmitoyl Thymidine Derivatives as Antimicrobial/Antiviral Inhibitors: Synthesis, Molecular Docking, Dynamic Simulations, ADMET, and Assessment of Protein-Ligand Interactions.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Prescription Patterns of Antipsychotics in Schizophrenia Patients-A Single-Center Prospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Versatile tissue-injectable hydrogels capable of the extended hydrolytic release of bioactive protein therapeutics.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2024Article
- To modulate or to skip: De-escalating PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy in ovarian cancer using adaptive therapy.Cell systems · 2024Article
- New Theobromine Apoptotic Analogue with Anticancer Potential Targeting the EGFR Protein: Computational andACS omega · 2024Article
- Treatment of evolving cancers will require dynamic decision support.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2023Review
- Experimental Medicine Approaches in Early-Phase CNS Drug Development.Advances in neurobiology · 2023Article
- Identifying potential natural inhibitors of Brucella melitensis Methionyl-tRNA synthetase through an in-silico approach.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2022Article
- Evaluation of solid tumor response to sequential treatment cycles via a new computational hybrid approach.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- A Retrospective Evaluation of Chemotherapy Overdoses in Dogs and Cats.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2021Article
- Why maximum tolerated dose?British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2019Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A long-established approach to the pharmacological treatment of disease has been to start low and go slow. However, clinicians often prescribe up to maximum tolerated dose (MTD), especially when treating acute and more severe disease, without evidence to show that MTD is more likely to improve outcomes. Cardiovascular guidelines for some indications advocate MTD even in prevention, for example hypercholesterolaemia, without compelling evidence of better outcomes. This review explores the origins and potential problems of prescribing medications at MTD. Oral effective dose 50 (ED50) may be a useful guide for balancing efficacy and safety.
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.