Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29670395›Full record

ArticleJournal of pain research2018

Bupivacaine in alginate and chitosan nanoparticles: an in vivo evaluation of efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and local toxicity.

Cíntia Maria Saia Cereda, Daniel Sebbe Mecatti, Juliana Zampoli Boava Papini, Diego Valério Bueno, Michelle Franz-Montan, Thalita Rocha, José Pedrazzoli Júnior, Eneida de Paula, Daniele Ribeiro de Araújo, Renato Grillo and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pain research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Intrathecal drug delivery in the era of nanomedicine.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

13 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Cíntia Maria Saia CeredaInstitute and Research Center São Leopoldo Mandic, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.
Daniel Sebbe MecattiUNIFAG, São Francisco University, Bragança Paulista, São Paulo, Brazil.
Juliana Zampoli Boava PapiniInstitute and Research Center São Leopoldo Mandic, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.
Diego Valério BuenoUNIFAG, São Francisco University, Bragança Paulista, São Paulo, Brazil.
Michelle Franz-MontanDepartment of Physiological Sciences, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil.
Thalita RochaUNIFAG, São Francisco University, Bragança Paulista, São Paulo, Brazil.
José Pedrazzoli JúniorUNIFAG, São Francisco University, Bragança Paulista, São Paulo, Brazil.
Eneida de PaulaDepartment of Biochemistry and Tissue Biology, University of Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.
Daniele Ribeiro de AraújoHuman and Natural Science Centre, Federal University of ABC, Santo André, São Paulo, Brazil.
Renato GrilloDepartment of Physics and Chemistry, School of Engineering, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Ilha Solteira, São Paulo, Brazil.
Leonardo Fernandes FracetoDepartment of Environmental Engineering, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Sorocaba, São Paulo, Brazil.
Silvana Aparecida CalafattiUNIFAG, São Francisco University, Bragança Paulista, São Paulo, Brazil.
Giovana Radomille TofoliInstitute and Research Center São Leopoldo Mandic, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.
Unidade Integrada de Farmacologia e Gastroenterologia · BRFaculdade São Leopoldo Mandic · BRUniversidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) · BRUniversidade de Sorocaba · BRUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) · BRUniversidade Federal do ABC · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study reports a preclinical evaluation of an alginate/chitosan nanoparticle formulation containing NovaBupi®, a racemic bupivacaine (BVC) containing 25% dextrobupivacaine and 75% levobupivacaine.

methodsNew Zealand White rabbits (n=6) received intraoral or intrathecal injections of BVC 0.5% or BVC 0.5%-loaded alginate-chitosan nanoparticles (BVC

resultsNo statistically significant difference was observed between plasma concentrations and pharmacokinetic parameters (

conclusionThe encapsulation of BVC prolongs the local anesthetic effect after infraorbital nerve blockade and altered the pharmacokinetics after intrathecal injection.

Indexed as

bupivacainedrug deliverylocal anestheticspolymeric nanoparticlepreclinical study

Identifiers

PMID29670395
PMCPMC5896646
OpenAlexW2796104365

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.