ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2020
Establishment of reference intervals of biochemical analytes for healthy Chinese volunteers during the screening process in clinical pharmacology trials.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeLaboratory reference intervals (RIs) play a key role in clinical pharmacology trials, both in the screening process and in evaluating drug safety. However, RIs tend to be confined to the general population, and data about RIs for the trial population are limited. The purpose of this study was to determine appropriate RIs for use when screening a defined special subgroup of a healthy Chinese population in clinical pharmacology trials.
methodsA total of 773 healthy Chinese volunteers (552 men and 221 women) who sought to participate in clinical pharmacology trials were included in this study. Sixteen different biochemical analytes were measured by a Beckman Coulter Unicel DxC 800 automatic analyzer. RIs were partitioned by gender using Harris and Boyd's method and calculated using a non-parametric method.
resultsThe RIs of 16 biochemical analytes for healthy Chinese volunteers during the screening process in clinical pharmacology trials are reported in this study. Noticeable differences between the RIs in this study and RIs provided by our laboratory or existing literature were also observed. Compared to our institutional RIs, the newly established RIs were more applicable to the current trial population.
conclusionsThe RIs in this study can serve as a powerful clinical tool during the screening process in clinical pharmacology trials. However, these RIs should be re-verified if any condition changes. The results also emphasize the importance re-establishing RIs which are more applicable to local trial populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32495082What 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.