ArticlePharmaceutical research2018
A Comparison of Two Methods for the Preparation Cefquinome-Loaded Gelatin Microspheres for Lung Targeting.
Article in Pharmaceutical research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Glycosaminoglycans' Ability to Promote Wound Healing: From Native Living Macromolecules to Artificial Biomaterials.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024Review
- Progress in the application of sustained-release drug microspheres in tissue engineering.Materials today. Bio · 2022Review
- Lung Targeted Lipopolymeric Microspheres of Dexamethasone for the Treatment of ARDS.Pharmaceutics · 2021Article
- Rutin Attenuates Vancomycin-Induced Nephrotoxicity by Ameliorating Oxidative Stress, Apoptosis, and Inflammation in Rats.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to prepare CEQ-loaded gelatin microspheres and compare two preparation methods, evaluate targeting to the lungs.
methodsGelatin microspheres containing CEQ were prepared by an emulsion cross-linking method (ECLM) and a spray-drying method (SDM) and were characterized in terms of morphology, size, drug-loading coefficient, encapsulation ratio and in vitro release.
resultsThe microspheres prepared by ECLM gave a drug loading (DL) of 19.4 ± 2.4% and an entrapment efficiency (EE) of 80.8 ± 3.2%. The microspheres prepared by SDM resulted in a DL value of 20.8 ± 2.7% and an EE of 95.3 ± 3.8%. The average particle size of microspheres was 7-30 μm by both methods and both preparations sustained CEQ release for 36 h in the target tissue (lungs). The in vitro release profile of the microspheres matched the Korsmeyer-Peppas release pattern. In vivo studies identified the lung as the target tissue and the region of maximum CEQ release. Histopathological examination showed a partial lung inflammation that disappeared spontaneously as the microspheres were biodegraded. In general, the formulations were safe.
conclusionThe well-sustained CEQ release from the microspheres revealed its suitability as a drug delivery vehicle that minimized injury to healthy tissues while achieving the accumulation of therapeutic drug for lung targeting. The intravenous administration of CEQ gelatin microspheres prepared by SDM is of potential value in treating lung diseases in animals.
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.