ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Therapeutic vancomycin monitoring: a comparative analysis of high-performance liquid chromatography and chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay methods in liver transplant recipients.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Analysis of age-specific adverse events with vancomycin: a real-world pharmacovigilance study based on the FAERS database.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Vancomycin is a glycopeptide antibiotic of choice for treating serious Gram-positive bacterial infections, including methicillin-resistant Methods: The cross-sectional study was conducted over 11 months at the Abu-Ali Sina Solid Organ Transplant Hospital in Shiraz, Iran. The study included 34 adult LTRs on vancomycin treatment, excluding those with hypersensitivity, chronic kidney disease, burn injuries, or receiving phenytoin. Blood samples were collected at different intervals post-vancomycin administration and analyzed using both CMIA and HPLC methods. Results: HPLC demonstrated superior accuracy and precision in measuring vancomycin concentrations, particularly in identifying patients with vancomycin-induced nephrotoxicity. Significantly higher trough (p-value: 0.026) and intermediate (p-value: 0.49) concentrations were detected by HPLC in patients experiencing nephrotoxicity, whereas CMIA did not show significant differences between groups. Pharmacokinetic variables such as half-life (p-value: 0.024) and AUC (p-value:0.037), measured by HPLC, were significantly different between LTRs with and without nephrotoxicity, which was not observed with CMIA. Conclusion: HPLC is more sensitive and reliable than CMIA for measuring vancomycin levels in LTRs, which is critical for optimizing vancomycin therapy and preventing adverse effects. The research suggests that HPLC should be the preferred method for vancomycin TDM in LTRs and further multicenter studies are recommended to validate these results.
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.