Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27495120›Full record

ReviewThe AAPS journal2016

A Quantitative Review and Meta-Models of the Variability and Factors Affecting Oral Drug Absorption-Part I: Gastrointestinal pH.

Ahmad Y Abuhelwa, David J R Foster, Richard N Upton

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The AAPS journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Mononuclear Aluminum-Fluoride Ions, AlFMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  14. Nanoparticle tools for maximizing oral drug delivery.Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica · 2025
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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.

Ahmad Y AbuhelwaAustralian Centre for Pharmacometrics and Sansom Institute, School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. Ahmad.Abuhelwa@mymail.unisa.edu.au.
David J R FosterAustralian Centre for Pharmacometrics and Sansom Institute, School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Richard N UptonAustralian Centre for Pharmacometrics and Sansom Institute, School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to conduct a quantitative meta-analysis for the values of, and variability in, gastrointestinal (GI) pH in the different GI segments; characterize the effect of food on the values and variability in these parameters; and present quantitative meta-models of distributions of GI pH to help inform models of oral drug absorption. The literature was systemically reviewed for the values of, and the variability in, GI pH under fed and fasted conditions. The GI tract was categorized into the following 10 distinct regions: stomach (proximal, mid-distal), duodenum (proximal, mid-distal), jejunum and ileum (proximal, mid, and distal small intestine), and colon (ascending, transverse, and descending colon). Meta-analysis used the "metafor" package of the R language. The time course of postprandial stomach pH was modeled using NONMEM. Food significantly influenced the estimated meta-mean stomach and duodenal pH but had no significant influence on small intestinal and colonic pH. The time course of postprandial pH was described using an exponential model. Increased meal caloric content increased the extent and duration of postprandial gastric pH buffering. The different parts of the small intestine had significantly different pH. Colonic pH was significantly different for descending but not for ascending and transverse colon. Knowledge of GI pH is important for the formulation design of the pH-dependent dosage forms and in understanding the dissolution and absorption of orally administered drugs. The meta-models of GI pH may also be used as part of semi-physiological pharmacokinetic models to characterize the effect of GI pH on the in vivo drug release and pharmacokinetics.

Indexed as

Administration, OralAnimalsGastrointestinal TractGastrointestinal TransitHumansIntestinal AbsorptionPharmaceutical PreparationsPharmaceutical Preparationsfed state pHgastric pHgastrointestinal pHmeal caloric contentmeta-analysis

Identifiers

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.