A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Longitudinal aggregate data model-based meta-analysis with NONMEM: approaches to handling within treatment arm correlation. | LitMetric

Longitudinal aggregate data model-based meta-analysis with NONMEM: approaches to handling within treatment arm correlation.

J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn

Global Pharmacometrics, Pfizer Inc., 50 Pequot Ave. MS 6025-A2249, New London, CT 06320, USA.

Published: April 2010

Literature data are often reported as multiple (longitudinal) mean outcomes observed in several groups of patients within a study. Observations within a study are correlated because the patients come from a common population, and the mean observations over time within a treatment arm are correlated because they are based on the same set of patients. As a result, model-based meta-analysis may require more than two levels of random effects to correctly characterize this correlation structure. Using simulation, we explored and evaluated ways to implement multi-level random effects in NONMEM. Simulation models that were linear and non-linear in the random effects were investigated. We compared estimation models that included study and/or treatment arm-level random effects, with and without residual correlation. With all estimation strategies, the fixed random effects parameters were accurately estimated. With regard to correctly characterizing the variability, models that accounted for correlation within a study and treatment arm over time were the best in some situations, while models that accounted for study-level correlation only were better in others. Models that included only treatment arm-level random effects were not superior in any scenario.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10928-010-9152-6DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

random effects
24
treatment arm
12
model-based meta-analysis
8
models included
8
treatment arm-level
8
arm-level random
8
models accounted
8
random
6
effects
6
treatment
5

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!