Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28523384›Full record

ReviewPharmaceutical research2017

The Need for Restructuring the Disordered Science of Amorphous Drug Formulations.

Khadijah Edueng, Denny Mahlin, Christel A S Bergström

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pharmaceutical research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
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.

Khadijah EduengDepartment of Pharmacy, Uppsala University, Uppsala Biomedical Centre, P.O. Box 580, SE-75123, Uppsala, Sweden.
Denny MahlinDepartment of Pharmacy, Uppsala University, Uppsala Biomedical Centre, P.O. Box 580, SE-75123, Uppsala, Sweden.
Christel A S BergströmDepartment of Pharmacy, Uppsala University, Uppsala Biomedical Centre, P.O. Box 580, SE-75123, Uppsala, Sweden. christel.bergstrom@farmaci.uu.se.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The alarming numbers of poorly soluble discovery compounds have centered the efforts towards finding strategies to improve the solubility. One of the attractive approaches to enhance solubility is via amorphization despite the stability issue associated with it. Although the number of amorphous-based research reports has increased tremendously after year 2000, little is known on the current research practice in designing amorphous formulation and how it has changed after the concept of solid dispersion was first introduced decades ago. In this review we try to answer the following questions: What model compounds and excipients have been used in amorphous-based research? How were these two components selected and prepared? What methods have been used to assess the performance of amorphous formulation? What methodology have evolved and/or been standardized since amorphous-based formulation was first introduced and to what extent have we embraced on new methods? Is the extent of research mirrored in the number of marketed amorphous drug products? We have summarized the history and evolution of amorphous formulation and discuss the current status of amorphous formulation-related research practice. We also explore the potential uses of old experimental methods and how they can be used in tandem with computational tools in designing amorphous formulation more efficiently than the traditional trial-and-error approach.

Indexed as

CrystallizationDrug CompoundingDrug StabilityDrug StorageExcipientsMolecular Dynamics SimulationPharmaceutical PreparationsPhase TransitionSolubilityExcipientsPharmaceutical Preparationsamorphous solid dispersioncomputational toolscrystallizationdissolutionstability

Identifiers

PMID28523384
PMCPMC5533858

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.