Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33805779›Full record

ArticlePharmaceutics2021

Nasal Powder Formulations: In-Vitro Characterisation of the Impact of Powders on Nasal Residence Time and Sensory Effects.

Marie Trenkel, Regina Scherließ

Erratum issuedOpen 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. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 92 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Development,Drug delivery · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Particulate bioaerogels for respiratory drug delivery.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2024
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marie TrenkelDepartment of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics, Kiel University, 24118 Kiel, Germany.
Regina ScherließDepartment of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics, Kiel University, 24118 Kiel, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8685-5672
Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nasal drug delivery is still primarily associated with locally-effective drugs, but next-generation products utilising the benefits of nasal administration-such as easy access to a relatively permeable mucosa, the presence of immunocompetent cells, and a direct route to the brain-are under investigation. Nasal powders offer the potential to improve the drugs' effects by providing higher resistance against the mucociliary clearance, and thus prolonging the contact time of the drug with its target site. However, suitable and easy-to-use in-vitro setups tailored to the characterisation of this effect are missing. In this study, a selection of excipients for powder formulations were used to evaluate the applicability of different methods which investigate the influence on the contact time. The combination of the assessment of rheological properties, dynamic vapour sorption, and adhesiveness on agar-mucin plates was found to be a valuable predictive tool. For the additional assessment of the sensations associated with the close contact of powders and the mucosa, a slug mucosal irritation assay was conducted and adapted to powders. These methods are regarded as being especially useful for comparative screenings in early formulation development.

Indexed as

mucoadhesionnasal drug deliveryrheologyslug mucosal irritation assay

Identifiers

PMID33805779
PMCPMC8001606
OpenAlexW3139469655

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.