ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and biopharmaceutics1995
Accuracy of noncompartmental pharmacokinetic parameters estimated from bolus injection and steady-state infusion data.
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.
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.
- Residence time dispersion as a general measure of drug distribution kinetics: estimation and physiological interpretation.Pharmaceutical research · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
8733950What 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.