Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 231

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Current use of aminoglycosides: indications, pharmacokinetics and monitoring for toxicity

Open access
Avent, M. L., Rogers, B. A., Cheng, A. C., Paterson, D. L.·2011·Internal Medicine Journal

Abstract

The new Australian Therapeutic Guidelines: Antibiotic, version 14 have revised the recommendations for the use and monitoring of aminoglycosides. The guidelines have clear distinctions between empirical and directed therapy as well as revised recommendations about the monitoring of aminoglycosides. This has led many clinicians to review their current practice with regard to the use of aminoglycosides. This review summarizes why aminoglycosides are still a valid treatment option and discusses the rationale for current dosing regimens in Gram‐negative infections. In particular it focuses on the various methods for monitoring aminoglycosides that are currently being used. The aminoglycoside monitoring methods can be categorized into three groups: linear regression analysis (one compartment model), population methods and Bayesian estimation procedures. Although the population methods are easy to use and require minimal resources they can recommend clinically inappropriate doses as they have constant pharmacokinetic parameters and are not valid in special population groups, that is, renal impairment. The linear regression and Bayesian methods recommend more accurate dosage regimens; however, they require additional resources, such as information technology and healthcare personnel with background training in pharmacokinetics. The Bayesian methods offer additional advantages, such as calculation of doses based on a single serum concentration and optimization of the patient's previous pharmacokinetic data, in order to determine subsequent dosage regimens. We recommend the Bayesian estimation procedures be used, wherever feasible. However, they require the expertise of healthcare practitioners with a good understanding of pharmacokinetic principles, such as clinical pharmacists/clinical pharmacologists, in order to make appropriate recommendations.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2011.02452.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 231

Metadata

Authors
Avent, M. L., Rogers, B. A., Cheng, A. C., & Paterson, D. L.
Venue
Internal Medicine Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-06
Volume
41
Issue
6
Pages
441-449
ISSN
  • 1444-0903 (ISSN-L)
  • 1445-5994
OpenAlex
W1892779545
Cited by
231
References
1
FWCI
8.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Current use of aminoglycosides: indications, pharmacokinetics and monitoring for toxicity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1445-5994.2011.02452.x
The paper
Avent, M. L., Rogers, B. A., Cheng, A. C., & Paterson, D. L. (2011). Current use of aminoglycosides: indications, pharmacokinetics and monitoring for toxicity. Internal Medicine Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-5994.2011.02452.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.