Trial reportBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2010
Superior palatability of crushed lercanidipine compared with amlodipine among children.
Trial report in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Poor-tasting pediatric medicines: Part 1. A scoping review of their impact on patient acceptability, medication adherence, and treatment outcomes.Frontiers in drug delivery · 2025Pooled it
- Methodology Used to Assess Acceptability of Oral Pediatric Medicines: A Systematic Literature Search and Narrative Review.Paediatric drugs · 2017Pooled it
- Formulations of Amlodipine: A Review.Journal of pharmaceutics · 2016Review
- The bad taste of medicines: overview of basic research on bitter taste.Clinical therapeutics · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo compare the taste of equivalent doses of pulverized amlodipine and lercanidipine, two calcium channel blockers, among children with kidney disease.
methodsEach child received a test dose of 1 mg of amlodipine besylate and 2 mg of lercanidipine in a single-blinded fashion. Children indicated their preference by pointing to the appropriate face on a visual analogue scale (VAS) that depicts five degrees of pleasure.
resultsThe VAS palatability score assigned to lercanidipine was higher than that assigned to amlodipine both in nine children 4-7 years of age (P < 0.005) and in 10 children 8-11 years of age (P < 0.005). The preference for lercanidipine was statistically significant in both girls (P < 0.02) and boys (P < 0.001) and in both children initially presented amlodipine (P < 0.005) and children initially presented lercanidipine (P < 0.005).
conclusionsThere is a lack of appropriate formulations for children prescribed drugs originally designed for adults, such as calcium channel blockers. Parents therefore crush available tablets and administer the medication mixed with solid food or a palatable drink. From the perspective of the child, the taste of pulverized lercanidipine is superior to that of pulverized amlodipine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.