Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8733950›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and biopharmaceutics1995

Accuracy of noncompartmental pharmacokinetic parameters estimated from bolus injection and steady-state infusion data.

M Looby, M Weiss

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pharmacokinetics and biopharmaceutics, 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

M LoobyDepartment of Pharmacology, Medical Faculty, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle/Saale, Germany.
M Weiss

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A Monte Carlo simulation study was carried out to examine the accuracy of parameters derived from curve moments. Impulse response (IR) and washout (WO) concentration-time curves, based on a triexponential model, were analyzed by numerical integration and regression analysis. Both designs were tested according to their robustness to measurement error and model misspecification. Performance of the methods was judged using the median error (ME) and the median absolute error (MAE) of 1000 simulations. The WO design provided better estimates of mean disposition residence time and worse estimates of the normalized variance of disposition residence times (CVD2) than its rival. At 20% measurement noise, the MAE of CVD2 was less than 13%. The WO design was much more robust to model misspecification. Numerical integration performed as good as, or better than, regression analysis. Both methods are very sensitive to tail-area error, meaning that special attention needs to be paid to this aspect of experimental design. This study demonstrates that it is possible to obtain good estimates of higher moment parameters in a well-designed experiment.

Indexed as

PharmacokineticsModels, TheoreticalStatistics as Topic

Identifiers

PMID8733950

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.