Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25940082›Full record

ReviewThe AAPS journal2015

In Vitro Testing for Orally Inhaled Products: Developments in Science-Based Regulatory Approaches.

Ben Forbes, Per Bäckman, David Christopher, Myrna Dolovich, Bing V Li, Beth Morgan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The AAPS journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. RespiCellPharmaceutics · 2021
    Article
  9. Optimization of the TranswellPharmaceutics · 2021
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. A new hypothesis to investigate bioequivalence of pharmaceutical inhalation products.Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences · 2019
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Design and development of a biorelevant simulated human lung fluid.Journal of drug delivery science and technology · 2018
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. 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

6 authors.

Ben ForbesInstitute of Pharmaceutical Science, King's College London, 150 Stamford Street, London, SE1 9NH, UK, Ben.forbes@kcl.ac.uk.
Per Bäckman
David Christopher
Myrna Dolovich
Bing V Li
Beth Morgan

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article is part of a series of reports from the "Orlando Inhalation Conference-Approaches in International Regulation" which was held in March 2014, and coorganized by the University of Florida and the International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium on Regulation and Science (IPAC-RS). The goal of the conference was to foster the exchange of ideas and knowledge across the global scientific and regulatory community in order to identify and help move towards strategies for internationally harmonized, science-based regulatory approaches for the development and marketing approval of inhalation medicines, including innovator and second entry products. This article provides an integrated perspective of case studies and discussion related to in vitro testing of orally inhaled products, including in vitro-in vivo correlations and requirements for in vitro data and statistical analysis that support quality or bioequivalence for regulatory applications.

Indexed as

Drug ApprovalDrug DesignAdministration, InhalationAerosolsHumansPharmaceutical PreparationsTherapeutic EquivalencyAerosolsPharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

PMID25940082
PMCPMC4476981

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.