Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32960439›Full record

ReviewClinical pharmacokinetics2021

Can Population Pharmacokinetics of Antibiotics be Extrapolated? Implications of External Evaluations.

Yu Cheng, Chen-Yu Wang, Zi-Ran Li, Yan Pan, Mao-Bai Liu, Zheng Jiao

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

6 authors.

Yu ChengDepartment of Pharmacy, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 241 West Huaihai Road, Shanghai, 200040, China.ORCID 0000-0001-8406-6098
Chen-Yu WangDepartment of Pharmacy, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 241 West Huaihai Road, Shanghai, 200040, China.
Zi-Ran LiCollege of Pharmacy, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Yan PanDepartment of Pharmacy, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 241 West Huaihai Road, Shanghai, 200040, China.
Mao-Bai LiuDepartment of Pharmacy, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, 29 Xin Quan Road, Gulou, Fuzhou, 350001, China. xhlmbtg@163.com.
Zheng JiaoDepartment of Pharmacy, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 241 West Huaihai Road, Shanghai, 200040, China. jiaozhen@online.sh.cn.ORCID 0000-0001-7999-7162

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveExternal evaluation is an important issue in the population pharmacokinetic analysis of antibiotics. The purpose of this review was to summarize the current approaches and status of external evaluations and discuss the implications of external evaluation results for the future individualization of dosing regimens.

methodsWe systematically searched the PubMed and EMBASE databases for external evaluation studies of population analysis and extracted the relevant information from these articles. A total of 32 studies were included in this review.

resultsVancomycin was investigated in 17 (53.1%) articles and was the most studied drug. Other studied drugs included gentamicin, tobramycin, amikacin, amoxicillin, ceftaroline, meropenem, fluconazole, voriconazole, and rifampicin. Nine (28.1%) studies were prospective, and the sample size varied widely between studies. Thirteen (40.6%) studies evaluated the population pharmacokinetic models by systematically searching for previous studies. Seven (21.9%) studies were multicenter studies, and 27 (84.4%) adopted the sparse sampling strategy. Almost all external evaluation studies of antibiotics (93.8%) used metrics for prediction-based diagnostics, while relatively fewer studies were based on simulations (46.9%) and Bayesian forecasting (25.0%).

conclusionThe results of external evaluations in previous studies revealed the poor extrapolation performance of existing models of prediction- and simulation-based diagnostics, whereas the posterior Bayesian method could improve predictive performance. There is an urgent need for the development of standards and guidelines for external evaluation studies.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsBayes TheoremHumansProspective StudiesAnti-Bacterial Agents

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.