ArticleClujul medical (1957)2015
Optimization of the sonication process for meloxicam nanocrystals preparation.
Article in Clujul medical (1957), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A New Approach for Preparing Stable High-Concentration Peptide Nanoparticle Formulations.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A Systematic Approach to the Development of Cilostazol Nanosuspension by Liquid Antisolvent Precipitation (LASP) and Its Combination with Ultrasound.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- A novel albumin wrapped nanosuspension of meloxicam to improve inflammation-targeting effects.International journal of nanomedicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsMeloxicam, a widely recommended AINS, presents poor water solubility, which limits its bioavailability and effect onset. The objective of this study is the investigation of the most important factors that influence the efficiency of sonication in the preparation of meloxicam nanocrystals.
methodsThe effects of crucial technological sonication parameters (amplitude, time and applied cycle) on the crystal sizes and dissolution were investigated using a central composite experimental design with three factors and three levels. Different mathematical models were applied for the evaluation of the influence of each factor on the measured responses.
resultsThe amplitude and the time were found as the most important variables. Their increase determined significant size reduction and homogeneity due to cavitation phenomenon, while the applied cycle was less important. The crystal size greatly influenced dissolution; a strong correlation was noted between small crystals and fast dissolution after freeze-drying the nanosuspensions. The optimal formulation was obtained by sonication at 100% amplitude, for 45 minutes and cycle 1, conditions which led to 600 nm crystals with 0.521 polydispersion index. The morphological analysis revealed small, round-shaped crystals with narrow size distribution.
conclusionsThe results provided the optimal sonication conditions needed to obtain meloxicam nanosuspensions with high drug dissolution capacity.
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.