ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2026
Evaluation of two model-based Bayesian approaches for vancomycin dosing in general hospitalized patients.
Article in Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent guidelines recommend Bayesian forecasting for vancomycin dosing. However, the agreement and predictive performance of different pharmacokinetic models remain unclear in hospitalized patients in general. This study evaluated two model-based Bayesian approaches implemented in platforms: the Goti et al. model in DoseMeRx and the Rodvold et al. model in PrecisePK. This single-centre prospective cohort study was conducted at Sultan Qaboos University Hospital, Oman, between April and October 2025. Adult inpatients aged ≥ 18 years with normal renal function were included; patients who were critically ill, pregnant, transplant recipients or receiving renal replacement therapy, or had malignancy were excluded. Agreement between the Goti et al. and Rodvold et al. models was assessed using the concordance correlation coefficient (ρc) and weighted Cohen's kappa (κw). Predictive performance was evaluated using relative bias (rBias) and relative root mean squared error (rRMSE). Models were considered clinically acceptable if rBias was within ± 20%. 90 patients were included. The models showed poor concordance (ρc = 0.59; 95% CI 0.44-0.71) and fair agreement (κw = 0.36; 95% CI 0.23-0.50). The Goti et al. model displayed poor predictive performance in prior predictions (rBias 33.92%; rRMSE 72.86%) and posterior predictions (rBias 20.17%; rRMSE 50.49%). The Rodvold et al. prior model also exhibited bias (rBias - 19.17%; rRMSE 51.52%). In contrast, the Rodvold et al. posterior model achieved clinically acceptable performance (rBias 0.47%; rRMSE 13.18%). The disagreement between the models suggests they may lead to different dosing decisions. The Rodvold et al. posterior model demonstrated acceptable accuracy and precision, making it more suitable for model-informed precision dosing. Further studies in larger and more diverse populations are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42800832What 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.