ArticleAAPS PharmSciTech2010
Relative precision of inhaler aerodynamic particle size distribution (APSD) metrics by full resolution and abbreviated andersen cascade impactors (ACIs): part 1.
Article in AAPS PharmSciTech, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Aerosol Delivery of siRNA to the Lungs. Part 1: Rationale for Gene Delivery Systems.Kona : powder science and technology in Japan · 2016Article
- Evaluation of an abbreviated impactor for fine particle fraction (FPF) determination of metered dose inhalers (MDI).AAPS PharmSciTech · 2013Article
- Good Cascade Impactor Practice (GCIP) and considerations for "in-use" specifications.AAPS PharmSciTech · 2013Article
- Measurement of drug in small particles from aqueous nasal sprays by Andersen Cascade Impactor.Pharmaceutical research · 2012Article
- Product lifecycle approach to cascade impaction measurements.AAPS PharmSciTech · 2011Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare relative precision of two different abbreviated impactor measurement (AIM) systems and a traditional multi-stage cascade impactor (CI). The experimental design was chosen to provide separate estimates of variability for each impactor type. Full-resolution CIs are useful for characterizing the aerosol aerodynamic particle size distribution of orally inhaled products during development but are too cumbersome, time-consuming, and resource-intensive for other applications, such as routine quality control (QC). This article presents a proof-of-concept experiment, where two AIM systems configured to provide metrics pertinent to QC (QC-system) and human respiratory tract (HRT-system) were evaluated using a hydrofluoroalkane-albuterol pressurized metered dose inhaler. The Andersen eight-stage CI (ACI) served as the benchmark apparatus. The statistical design allowed estimation of precision with each CI configuration. Apart from one source of systematic error affecting extra-fine particle fraction from the HRT-system, no other bias was detected with either abbreviated system. The observed bias was shown to be caused by particle bounce following the displacement of surfactant by the shear force of the airflow diverging above the collection plate of the second impaction stage. A procedure was subsequently developed that eliminated this source of error, as described in the second article of this series (submitted to AAPS PharmSciTech). Measurements obtained with both abbreviated impactors were very similar in precision to the ACI for all measures of in vitro performance evaluated. Such abbreviated impactors can therefore be substituted for the ACI in certain situations, such as inhaler QC or add-on device testing.
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.