Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24452499›Full record

ReviewAAPS PharmSciTech2014

Advances in metered dose inhaler technology: formulation development.

Paul B Myrdal, Poonam Sheth, Stephen W Stein

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in AAPS PharmSciTech, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed
8.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

57 citing papers in PubMed, 176 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Prediction of the Atomization Process in RespimatBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Paul B MyrdalCollege of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, 1703 E. Mabel St., PO Box 210207, Tucson, Arizona, 85721, USA, myrdal@pharmacy.arizona.edu.
Poonam Sheth
Stephen W Stein
University of Arizona · USKindeva Drug Delivery (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pressurized metered dose inhalers (MDIs) are a long-standing method to treat diseases of the lung, such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. MDIs rely on the driving force of the propellant, which comprises the bulk of the MDI formulation, to atomize droplets containing drug and excipients, which ideally should deposit in the lungs. During the phase out of chlorofluorocarbon propellants and the introduction of more environmentally friendly hydrofluoroalkane propellants, many improvements were made to the methods of formulating for MDI drug delivery along with a greater understanding of formulation variables on product performance. This review presents a survey of challenges associated with formulating MDIs as solution or suspension products with one or more drugs, while considering the physicochemical properties of various excipients and how the addition of these excipients may impact overall product performance of the MDI. Propellants, volatile and nonvolatile cosolvents, surfactants, polymers, suspension stabilizers, and bulking agents are among the variety of excipients discussed in this review article. Furthermore, other formulation approaches, such as engineered excipient and drug-excipient particles, to deliver multiple drugs from a single MDI are also evaluated.

Indexed as

Chemistry, PharmaceuticalMetered Dose InhalersHumansLung

Identifiers

PMID24452499
PMCPMC3969484
OpenAlexW2077722212

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.