2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.nephro.2017.02.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Limited sampling strategy for the estimation of mycophenolic acid area under the curve in Tunisian renal transplant patients

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
7
0
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
7
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…For tacrolimus (Tac) co-administration (30 LSSs), the time points most often included were C4 (19% of all time points, 57% of the equations), and C2 (15% of all time points, 47% of the equations). LSS established by Gaies et al [ 25 ] was not included as the authors did not separately analyze patients receiving CsA and Tac.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…For tacrolimus (Tac) co-administration (30 LSSs), the time points most often included were C4 (19% of all time points, 57% of the equations), and C2 (15% of all time points, 47% of the equations). LSS established by Gaies et al [ 25 ] was not included as the authors did not separately analyze patients receiving CsA and Tac.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The latter equation had the advantage of being validated in an external group of patients. The LSSs which was characterized by very good bias and precision was MPA AUC pred = 0.414 + 1.210 × C0.5 + 2.256 × C1.5 + 4.134 × C4 [ 25 ], which had the advantages of being validated in a validation group and applied to patients receiving either CsA or Tac; however, the r 2 was < 0.950. High r 2 was observed for the following equations: AUC pred = 8.32 + 0.904 × C1.5 + 1.955 × C4 + 10.206 × C10 [ 35 ], AUC pred = 15.3 + 7.06 × C4 + 6.77 × C8 − 3.76 × C12, and AUC pred = – 0.247 + 11.73 × C6 + 2.92 × C2 [ 44 ]; however, the bias and precision were given in AUC units [ 35 ] or not given at all [ 44 ], so it is therefore difficult to compare these results with those expressed as percentages.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…To assess the predictive performance of LSSs available in the literature, we calculated r 2 as well as the bias and precision for AUC pred as the mean relative prediction error (%MPE) and the percentage of the mean absolute relative prediction error (%MAE), respectively, both with 95% confidence intervals. According to the literature, precision and bias ±15% were considered acceptable [ 22 , 59 , 60 ], although some authors defined the clinical acceptance as ±20% [ 18 ] or even as ±33% [ 61 ]. Although it does not translate into clinical practice, lower percentages of precision and bias result in more accurate calculations.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%