TABLE 3.

Evaluation of the predictive performance of the studied models

Model	Bias and precision relative to naive predictora
	ΔME (mg/liter)			ΔMSE (mg/liter)
	Mean	95% CI	Rank	Mean	95% CI	Rank
Crandon et al. (9)	−1.82	−3.28 to −0.36	2	−26.27	−58.5 to 5.95	5
Li et al. (7)	−4.25	−5.55 to −2.95	5	−29.02	−49.95 to −8.01	4
Doh et al. with edema (8)	−2.96	−4.29 to −1.63	3	−35	−58.4 to −11.58	3
Doh et al. without edema (8)	−4.31	−5.69 to −2.93	6	−19.8	−39.02 to −0.57	6
Leroy et al. (11, 13)	−5.34	−6.69 to −4	8	−13.13	−35.39 to 9.12	8
Christensson et al. (12)	−4.45	−5.85 to −3.05	7	−16.02	−40.13 to 8.09	7
Muro et al. (14)	0.02	−1.19 to 1.24	1	−55.04	−82.82 to −27.26	1
Roberts et al. (10)	−3.37	−4.66 to −2.08	4	−36.54	−57.37 to −15.7	2

^aThe bias and precision of the models were ranked according to the delta mean prediction error (ΔME) and delta mean square prediction error (ΔMSE) in relation to a naive predictor (mean of all observed concentrations), respectively.