Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31385119›Full record

ArticleThe AAPS journal2019

Evaluation of Assumptions Underpinning Pharmacometric Models.

Qing-Xi Ooi, Daniel F B Wright, Geoffrey K Isbister, Stephen B Duffull

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The AAPS journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

4 authors.

Qing-Xi OoiSchool of Pharmacy, University of Otago, 63 Hanover Street, Dunedin, 9016, New Zealand. qingxiooi.pmx@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-4310-9842
Daniel F B WrightSchool of Pharmacy, University of Otago, 63 Hanover Street, Dunedin, 9016, New Zealand.
Geoffrey K IsbisterSchool of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Stephen B DuffullSchool of Pharmacy, University of Otago, 63 Hanover Street, Dunedin, 9016, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Assumptions inherent to pharmacometric model development and use are not routinely acknowledged, described, or evaluated. The aim of this work is to present a framework for systematic evaluation of assumptions. To aid identification of assumptions, we categorise assumptions into two types: implicit and explicit assumptions. Implicit assumptions are inherent in a method or model and underpin its derivation and use. Explicit assumptions arise from heuristic principles and are typically defined by the user to enable the application of a method or model. A flowchart was developed for systematic evaluation of assumptions. For each assumption, the impact of assumption violation ('significant', 'insignificant', 'unknown') and the probability of assumption violation ('likely', 'unlikely', 'unknown') will be evaluated based on prior knowledge or the result of an additional bespoke study to arrive at a decision ('go', 'no-go') for both model building and model use. A table of assumptions with standardised headings has been proposed to facilitate the documentation of assumptions and evaluation of results. The utility of the proposed framework was illustrated using four assumptions underpinning a top-down model describing the warfarin-coagulation proteins' relationship. The next step of this work is to apply the framework to a series of other settings to fully assess its practicality and its value in identifying and making inferences from assumptions.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalPharmacokineticsPharmacologyAnticoagulantsHumansWarfarinAnticoagulantsWarfarinassessmentassumptionevaluationmodelspharmacometrics

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.