ArticleCanadian journal of veterinary research = Revue canadienne de recherche veterinaire2006
The effects of equine skin preparation on transdermal drug penetration in vitro.
Article in Canadian journal of veterinary research = Revue canadienne de recherche veterinaire, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An increasing number of formulations are applied to equine skin, yet variable penetration can affect efficacy, or the incidence of adverse effects, or both. To investigate the effects of common methods of skin preparation on transdermal drug penetration in vitro, we clipped, harvested, and froze skin samples from 5 Thoroughbred geldings. Thawed samples were prepared as follows: control (no preparation); cleaned with aqueous chlorhexidine (Aq-C, 0.1% w/v); cleaned with alcoholic chlorhexidine (Al-C, 0.5% w/v); shaved (Sh); or tape-stripped (Ta) with the use of adhesive tape. The samples were then placed in diffusion cells, and 2 g of methylsalicylate (MeSa) gel (Dencorub) was applied to the stratum corneum side. The penetration of MeSa and its analyte, salicylate (Sa), through the skin samples was measured over 10 h. Compared with control skin, significantly more MeSa penetrated through skin prepared with Al-C or Sh (P < 0.01) or with Aq-C or Ta (P < 0.05), and significantly more Sa was recovered in the receptor phase from skin prepared with Aq-C, Al-C, or Sh (P < 0.05) or with Ta (P < 0.01). A significantly higher rate of penetration and shorter lag time were also noted for MeSa with all the prepared skin samples, compared with the control samples. The results show that clinical techniques routinely used to clean or prepare skin can significantly affect the rate and extent of penetration of a topically applied drug. This may result in greater systemic availability of active drug, which could lead to enhanced efficacy and, possibly, a higher incidence of adverse effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17042388PMC1562528W51885488What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.