Observational studyThe Pediatric infectious disease journal2020
Simulated Comparison of a Bayesian Clinical Decision Support System Versus Standard of Care For Achieving Gentamicin Pharmacokinetic Targets in Neonates.
Observational study in The Pediatric infectious disease journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanisms, prevention, and management of aminoglycoside-induced hearing loss in neonates and children: a translational review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- [Free online software tools for precision dosing of vancomycin, and other drugs]Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Medicas (Cordoba, Argentina) · 2025Review
- Retrospective Bayesian Reanalysis of Single Gentamicin Concentrations: A Neonatal Case Series.Medicines (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Simplified Dosing Regimens for Gentamicin in Neonatal Sepsis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGentamicin therapy in neonates is optimized through achieving specific peak and trough concentrations. The objective of this study was to compare the ability a Bayesian clinical decision support system (CDSS) with standard of care (SOC) in determining personalized gentamicin therapies for neonates, at regimen initiation and in response to measured drug concentrations.
methodsThis retrospective review and simulation compared target attainment among 4 arms: historical dosing according to SOC, via nomogram for initial dosing (SOC-initial) and via clinician judgment in response to measured concentrations (SOC-adjusted), and simulated dosing using the CDSS, incorporating a neonatal pharmacokinetic model for initial dosing (CDSS-initial) and incorporating maximum a posteriori-Bayesian analysis in response to measured concentrations (CDSS-adjusted). "True" patient pharmacokinetic parameters and peak and trough concentration predictions were calculated via the CDSS using the entirety of the patient dosing and concentration history. The primary outcome was pharmacokinetic target attainment of desired gentamicin peak and trough concentrations.
resultsThe study included 564 gentamicin concentrations among 339 patients. Mean demographics were 35 weeks gestational age (52% premature births) and 2.44 kg dosing weight. Mean PK parameters were 0.0533 L/h/kg clearance, 0.458 L/kg volume of distribution, and 8.66 hours half-life. Peak concentrations in the desired range were achieved in 96% of significantly more often in the CDSS-initial regimens and 94% of CDSS-adjusted regimens versus 86% of SOC-initial regimens and 66% of SOC-adjusted regimens. No difference was found in trough target attainment among study groups.
conclusionsIn simulation, a Bayesian CDSS showed superiority to SOC in achieving gentamicin pharmacokinetic exposure targets in neonates. Use of a CDSS may improve the safety and efficacy of gentamicin therapy for neonates.
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.