Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33803163›Full record

ReviewPharmaceutics2021

3DP Printing of Oral Solid Formulations: A Systematic Review.

Chiara R M Brambilla, Ogochukwu Lilian Okafor-Muo, Hany Hassanin, Amr ElShaer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pharmaceutics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. [Preparation andBeijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. [Preparation andBeijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2022
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Chiara R M BrambillaDrug Discovery, Delivery and Patient Care (DDDPC) Theme, Department of Pharmacy, Pharmacy and Chemistry, School of Life Sciences, Kingston University London, Kingston Upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2EE, UK.
Ogochukwu Lilian Okafor-MuoDrug Discovery, Delivery and Patient Care (DDDPC) Theme, Department of Pharmacy, Pharmacy and Chemistry, School of Life Sciences, Kingston University London, Kingston Upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2EE, UK.
Hany HassaninSchool of Engineering, Technology and Design, The University of Canterbury Christ Church, Canterbury CT1 1QU, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8646-0520
Amr ElShaerDrug Discovery, Delivery and Patient Care (DDDPC) Theme, Department of Pharmacy, Pharmacy and Chemistry, School of Life Sciences, Kingston University London, Kingston Upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2EE, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5058-0256

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Three-dimensional (3D) printing is a recent technology, which gives the possibility to manufacture personalised dosage forms and it has a broad range of applications. One of the most developed, it is the manufacture of oral solid dosage and the four 3DP techniques which have been more used for their manufacture are FDM, inkjet 3DP, SLA and SLS. This systematic review is carried out to statistically analyze the current 3DP techniques employed in manufacturing oral solid formulations and assess the recent trends of this new technology. The work has been organised into four steps, (1) screening of the articles, definition of the inclusion and exclusion criteria and classification of the articles in the two main groups (included/excluded); (2) quantification and characterisation of the included articles; (3) evaluation of the validity of data and data extraction process; (4) data analysis, discussion, and conclusion to define which technique offers the best properties to be applied in the manufacture of oral solid formulations. It has been observed that with SLS 3DP technique, all the characterisation tests required by the BP (drug content, drug dissolution profile, hardness, friability, disintegration time and uniformity of weight) have been performed in the majority of articles, except for the friability test. However, it is not possible to define which of the four 3DP techniques is the most suitable for the manufacture of oral solid formulations, because the selection is affected by different parameters, such as the type of formulation, the physical-mechanical properties to achieve. Moreover, each technique has its specific advantages and disadvantages, such as for FDM the biggest challenge is the degradation of the drug, due to high printing temperature process or for SLA is the toxicity of the carcinogenic risk of the photopolymerising material.

Indexed as

3D printingoral solid dosage formssystematic reviewtablets

Identifiers

PMID33803163
PMCPMC8002067

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.