ArticlePharmaceutics2020
In Vitro Evaluation of Enteric-Coated HPMC Capsules-Effect of Formulation Factors on Product Performance.
Article in Pharmaceutics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Precision Drug Delivery of LY-11h for Acute Myeloid Leukemia Treatment Using Machine Learning-Assisted Hot Melt Extrusion and 3D-Printed Technologies.Pharmaceutics · 2026Article
- Exploring Immersion Coating as a Cost-Effective Method for Small-Scale Production of Enteric-Coated Gelatin Capsules.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Drying Process of HPMC-Based Hard Capsules: Visual Experiment and Mathematical Modeling.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Polymeric Coatings and Antimicrobial Peptides as Efficient Systems for Treating Implantable Medical Devices Associated-Infections.Polymers · 2022Review
- Oral supplementation of inorganic pyrophosphate in pseudoxanthoma elasticum.Experimental dermatology · 2022Article
- Drying Behavior and Kinetics of Drying Process of Plant-Based Enteric Hard Capsules.Pharmaceutics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A comparative study on different enteric-coated hard capsules was performed. The influence of different formulation factors like choice of enteric polymer, triethyl citrate (TEC) concentration (plasticizer), talc concentrations (anti-tacking agent), and different coating process parameters on the sealing performance of the capsule and the disintegration time were investigated. Furthermore, the influence of different disintegration test methods (with disc vs. without disc and 50 mM U.S. Pharmacopoeia (USP) buffer pH 6.8 vs. biopredictive 15 mM phosphate buffer pH 6.5) was evaluated. All formulations showed sufficient but not equivalent acid resistance when tested. Polymer type was the main factor influencing the capsule sealing and disintegration time. In addition, TEC and talc could affect the performance of the formulation. Regarding the choice of the disintegration test method, the presence of a disc had for the most part only limited influence on the results. The choice of disintegration buffer was found to be important in identifying differences between the formulations.
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.