Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33572394›Full record

ArticlePharmaceutics2021

Evaluation of Binders in Twin-Screw Wet Granulation.

Claudia Köster, Sebastian Pohl, Peter Kleinebudde

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmaceutics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Claudia KösterInstitute of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics, Heinrich Heine University, Universitätsstr. 1, 40225 Duesseldorf, Germany.
Sebastian PohlInstitute of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics, Heinrich Heine University, Universitätsstr. 1, 40225 Duesseldorf, Germany.
Peter KleinebuddeInstitute of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics, Heinrich Heine University, Universitätsstr. 1, 40225 Duesseldorf, Germany.
Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf · DE

Funding

Nippon Soda no number
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The binders povidone (Kollidon 30), copovidone (Kollidon VA64), hypromellose (Pharmacoat 606), and three types of hyprolose (HPC SSL‑SFP, HPC SSL, and HPC SL‑FP) were evaluated regarding their suitability in twin-screw wet granulation. Six mixtures of lactose and binder as well as lactose without binder were twin-screw granulated with demineralized water at different barrel fill levels and subsequently tableted. A screening run with HPC SSL determined the amount of water as an influential parameter for oversized agglomerates. Subsequent examination of different binders, especially Kollidon 30 and Kollidon VA64 resulted in large granules. All binders, except Pharmacoat 606, led to a reduction of fines compared to granulation without a binder. The molecular weight of applied hyproloses did not appear as influential. Tableting required an upstream sieving step to remove overlarge granules. Tableting was possible for all formulations at sufficient compression pressure. Most binders resulted in comparable tensile strengths, while Pharmacoat 606 led to lower and lactose without a binder to the lowest tensile strength. Tablets without a binder disintegrated easily, whereas binder containing tablets of sufficient tensile strength often nearly failed or failed the disintegration test. Especially tablets containing Pharmacoat 606 and HPC SL‑FP disintegrated too slowly.

Indexed as

granule size distributionparticle sizetabletabilitytwin-screw wet granulation

Identifiers

PMID33572394
PMCPMC7916237
OpenAlexW3126426295

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.