ArticlePharmaceutics2022
Model Re-Estimation: An Alternative for Poor Predictive Performance during External Evaluations? Example of Gentamicin in Critically Ill Patients.
Article in Pharmaceutics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guidance for External Evaluation and Selection of Population Pharmacokinetic Models for Precision Dosing.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2026Review
- Leveraging Clinical Data to Enhance the Performance Evaluation of Ceftriaxone Population Pharmacokinetic Models in Children.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2025Article
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAn external evaluation is crucial before clinical applications; however, only a few gentamicin population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) models for critically ill patients included it in the model development. In this study, we aimed to evaluate gentamicin PopPK models developed for critically ill patients.
methodsThe evaluated models were selected following a literature review on aminoglycoside PopPK models for critically ill patients. The data of patients were retrospectively collected from two Quebec hospitals, the external evaluation and model re-estimation were performed with NONMEM
resultsFrom the datasets of 39 and 48 patients from the two Quebec hospitals, none of the evaluated models presented acceptable values for bias and imprecision. Following model re-estimations, all models showed an acceptable predictive performance. An a priori dosing nomogram was developed with the best performing re-estimated model and was consistent based on recommended dosing regimens.
conclusionDue to the poor predictive performance during the external evaluations, the latter must be prioritized during model development. Model re-estimation may be an alternative to developing a new model, especially when most known models display similar covariates.
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.