ArticleThe AAPS journal2018
A Simple Approach for Comparing the In Vitro Dissolution Profiles of Highly Variable Drug Products: a Proposal.
Article in The AAPS journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Initial Exploration on the Application of the MoCMC Approach for Determining In Vitro Product Comparability.Pharmaceutical research · 2026Article
- Hot-Melt Extrusion-Based Dexamethasone-PLGA Implants: Physicochemical, Physicomechanical, and Surface Morphological Properties and In Vitro Release Corrected for Drug Degradation.Pharmaceutics · 2024Article
- Dissolution Profiles Comparison Using Conventional and Bias Corrected and Accelerated f2 Bootstrap Approaches with Different Software's: Impact of Variability, Sample Size and Number of Bootstraps.AAPS PharmSciTech · 2023Article
- Combined Methodologies for DeterminingFrontiers in chemistry · 2021Article
- Manufacturing of Dexamethasone-Poly(d,l-Lactide-co-Glycolide) Implants Using Hot-Melt Extrusion: Within- and Between-Batch Product Performance Comparisons.Journal of ocular pharmacology and therapeutics : the official journal of the Association for Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When in vitro dissolution profile variability prohibits the use of the F2 metric, there currently is no satisfactory alternative available. Published reports evaluating alternative approaches such as Multivariate Statistical Distance and use of a bootstrap F2 identify sources of bias that can limit the utility of these alternatives. Within veterinary medicine, an additional complication is the potential magnitude of interlot variability associated with dosage forms containing "natural" ingredients. In situations when both interlot and intralot variability need to be factored in the test and reference profile comparison, we designed a method that integrates such concepts as F2, USP S1 and S2 criteria and statistical tolerance limits. Unlike F2, this alternative approach integrates a statistical confidence into the determination through the use of tolerance limits about the reference product profile. Moreover, while differences in product variability, along with differences in mean profiles, will influence the comparability assessment, this method does not impose the need to confirm homogeneity of variances: there is not direct statistical comparison of test versus reference dissolution data. For more typical situations when interlot variability is not a concern, the F2 component can be omitted from the profile comparison. Lastly, by being a model-independent approach, we avoid the potential for introducing error into the comparability determination due either to model misspecification or problems associated with a lack of collinearity. This manuscript details this alternative approach and the results of performance characterization efforts to illustrate its behavior under a range of potential situations.
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.