| Title |
Weight-based dosing in medication use: what should we know?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s103156 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sheng-dong Pan, Ling-ling Zhu, Meng Chen, Ping Xia, Quan Zhou |
| Abstract |
Weight-based dosing strategy is still challenging due to poor awareness and adherence. It is necessary to let clinicians know of the latest developments in this respect and the correct circumstances in which weight-based dosing is of clinical relevance. A literature search was conducted using PubMed. Clinical indications, physiological factors, and types of medication may determine the applicability of weight-based dosing. In some cases, the weight effect may be minimal or the proper dosage can only be determined when weight is combined with other factors. Medications within similar therapeutic or structural class (eg, anticoagulants, antitumor necrosis factor medications, P2Y12-receptor antagonists, and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibodies) may exhibit differences in requirements on weight-based dosing. In some cases, weight-based dosing is superior to currently recommended fixed-dose regimen in adult patients (eg, hydrocortisone, vancomycin, linezolid, and aprotinin). On the contrary, fixed dosing is noninferior to or even better than currently recommended weight-based regimen in adult patients in some cases (eg, cyclosporine microemulsion, recombinant activated Factor VII, and epoetin α). Ideal body-weight-based dosing may be superior to the currently recommended total body-weight-based regimen (eg, atracurium and rocuronium). For dosing in pediatrics, whether weight-based dosing is better than body surface-area-based dosing is dependent on the particular medication (eg, methotrexate, prednisone, prednisolone, zidovudine, didanosine, growth hormone, and 13-cis-retinoic acid). Age-based dosing strategy is better than weight-based dosing in some cases (eg, intravenous busulfan and dalteparin). Dosing guided by pharmacogenetic testing did not show pharmacoeconomic advantage over weight-adjusted dosing of 6-mercaptopurine. The common viewpoint (ie, pediatric patients should be dosed on the basis of body weight) is not always correct. Effective weight-based dosing interventions include standardization of weight estimation, documentation and dosing determination, dosing chart, dosing protocol, order set, pharmacist participation, technological information, and educational measures. Although dosing methods are specified in prescribing information for each drug and there are no principal pros and cons to be elaborated, this review of weight-based dosing strategy will enrich the knowledge of medication administration from the perspectives of safety, efficacy, and pharmacoeconomics, and will also provide research opportunities in clinical practice. Clinicians should be familiar with dosage and administration of the medication to be prescribed as well as the latest developments. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 40% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 166 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 24 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 8% |
| Other | 11 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 36 | 22% |
| Unknown | 50 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 35 | 21% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 32 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 17 | 10% |
| Unknown | 55 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 March 2024.
All research outputs
#3,407,297
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#185
of 1,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,110
of 315,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#9
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,769 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,585 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.