Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32191998›Full record

ArticlePharmaceutics2020

Reconciling Quality by Design and Transdermal Product Development.

Kenneth Miller

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmaceutics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Kenneth MillerISYN Consulting LLC, Melrose, FL 32666, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since my first exposure to the acronym 'QbD' more than ten years ago, I have been trying to understand exactly what QbD is and how I might incorporate its teachings into my twenty-odd years of experience developing transdermal systems. I feel I have made little progress since then. Eventually, I came to realize that while QbD has its merits, it is not a guide for (transdermal) product development, despite so often being described as such. Instead, I have come to consider QbD as a language useful for organizing and presenting the array of data supporting the approval of a new product, but it still leaves the experimental approach entirely up to the developer. What QbD does provide to the development community is a means of conveying product information through a consistent framework facilitating both internal and regulatory review. As a result, new 'QbD' product applications tend to be more uniform and complete than the applications that preceded the initiative.

Indexed as

quality by designtransdermal product development

Identifiers

PMID32191998
PMCPMC7150999

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.