ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Awareness, use, attitudes, and implementation challenges of Bayesian dose prediction software in clinical practice: a multi-organizational survey.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bayesian dose prediction software supports model-informed precision dosing to improve therapeutic outcomes. This study evaluated clinicians' awareness, usage, attitudes, and perceived barriers related to Bayesian dosing software. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using a validated electronic questionnaire distributed through eight international professional organizations. Descriptive statistics, non-parametric tests, and logistic regression analyses were performed using SPSS version 29. Results: Of 234 respondents, 190 (81.2%) were eligible and completed the survey. Most were from North America (67.4%), pharmacists (76.3%), and worked in academic hospitals (78.4%). Awareness of Bayesian dosing software was high (82.6%) among respondents, yet only 65% reported its use in clinical practice. The most used software included InsightRx (40.2%), DoseMe (22.5%), and MWPharm (18.6%), mainly for vancomycin (94.1%) and aminoglycosides (50%). The overall median attitude score (IQR) was 4.0 (2.0), indicating positive attitudes, whereas the barrier score was 3.0 (2.0), reflecting high implementation challenges. The most frequently reported barriers were prohibitive licensing costs (65%), lack of institutional support for use and maintenance (50.3%), and limited awareness of its use (49.7%). In multivariable analysis, "region" was the sole predictor of awareness with participants from the Middle East significantly less aware (AOR = 0.14; 95% CI: 0.05-0.42; p = 0.002). Software type was significantly associated with professional role, with pharmacists more likely to select commonly used tools (AOR = 7.2; 95% CI: 1.4-17.9; p = 0.003). A non-significant negative correlation was observed between overall attitude and barrier scores (r = -0.49; p = 0.072). Conclusion: Despite high awareness and positive attitudes toward Bayesian dosing software, its clinical use remains limited, primarily focused on vancomycin and aminoglycosides, mostly restricted to three commercial tools. Targeted interventions are required to address key implementation barriers related to licensing costs, institutional support, and awareness.
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.