Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34776982›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2021

Limitations of Antibiotic MIC-Based PK-PD Metrics: Looking Back to Move Forward.

Cornelia B Landersdorfer, Roger L Nation

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Uncertainty undermines the validity of antimicrobial pharmacodynamics.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2026
    Article
  11. Mechanism, Efficacy, and Safety of Natural Antibiotics.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Cornelia B LandersdorferDrug Delivery, Disposition and Dynamics, Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Roger L NationDrug Delivery, Disposition and Dynamics, Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Monash University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Within a few years after the first successful clinical use of penicillin, investigations were conducted in animal infection models to explore a range of factors that were considered likely to influence the antibacterial response to the drug. Those studies identified that the response was influenced by not only the total daily dose but also the interval between individual doses across the day, and whether penicillin was administered in an intermittent or continuous manner. Later, as more antibiotics were discovered and developed, antimicrobial pharmacologists began to measure antibiotic concentrations in biological fluids. This enabled the linking of antibacterial response at a single time point in an animal or

Indexed as

antibioticslimitations and implicationsMIC-based metricsmodel-informed precision dosingPK-PD relationships

Identifiers

PMID34776982
PMCPMC8585766
OpenAlexW3209433388

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.