ArticleClinical and translational science2023
The "One-Step" approach for QT analysis increases the sensitivity of nonclinical QTc analysis.
Article in Clinical and translational science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- 25 years of applying the 3Rs principles in safety pharmacology: success stories and future perspectives.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Review
- Modelling of clinical TQT studies outcomes from preclinical cardiovascular safety pharmacology studies using the one-step QTc model.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Cardiovascular safety pharmacology: beyond arrhythmic risk assessment.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- A "one-step" approach to heart rate correction and statistical analysis applied to conscious dog QTc studies.Clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- The "One-Step" approach for QT analysis increases the sensitivity of nonclinical QTc analysis.Clinical and translational science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Whether a compound prolongs cardiac repolarization independent of changes in beat rate is a critical question in drug research and development. Current practice is to resolve this in two steps. First, the QT interval is corrected for the influence of rate and then statistical significance is tested. There is renewed interest in improving the sensitivity of nonclinical corrected QT interval (QTc) assessment with modern studies having greater data density than previously utilized. The current analyses examine the effects of moxifloxacin or vehicle on the QT interval in nonhuman primates (NHPs) using a previously described one-step method. The primary end point is the statistical sensitivity of the assessment. Publications suggest that for a four animal crossover (4 × 4) in NHPs the minimal detectable difference (MDD) is greater than or equal to 10 ms, whereas in an eight animal crossover the MDD is ~6.5 ms. Using the one-step method, the MDD for the four animal NHP assessments was 3 ms. In addition, the one-step model accounted for day-to-day differences in the heart rate and QT-rate slope as well as drug-induced changes in these parameters. This method provides an increase in the sensitivity and reduces the number of animals necessary for detecting potential QT change and represents "best practice" in nonclinical QTc assessment in safety pharmacology studies.
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.