ArticlePharmaceutics2021
Comparative Assessment of In Vitro and In Silico Methods for Aerodynamic Characterization of Powders for Inhalation.
Article in Pharmaceutics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comprehensive Aerodynamic and Physicochemical Stability Evaluations of Nanocrystal-Based Dry Powder Inhalers: The Role of Mannitol and Leucine in Enhancing Performance.Pharmaceutics · 2025Article
- A Novel Combined Dry Powder Inhaler Comprising Nanosized Ketoprofen-Embedded Mannitol-Coated Microparticles for Pulmonary Inflammations: Development, In Vitro-In Silico Characterization, and Cell Line Evaluation.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Fabrication andF1000Research · 2024Article
- Numerical Modeling of Particle Dynamics Inside a Dry Powder Inhaler.Pharmaceutics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In vitro assessment of dry powders for inhalation (DPIs) aerodynamic performance is an inevitable test in DPI development. However, contemporary trends in drug development also implicate the use of in silico methods, e.g., computational fluid dynamics (CFD) coupled with discrete phase modeling (DPM). The aim of this study was to compare the designed CFD-DPM outcomes with the results of three in vitro methods for aerodynamic assessment of solid lipid microparticle DPIs. The model was able to simulate particle-to-wall sticking and estimate fractions of particles that stick or bounce off the inhaler's wall; however, we observed notable differences between the in silico and in vitro results. The predicted emitted fractions (EFs) were comparable to the in vitro determined EFs, whereas the predicted fine particle fractions (FPFs) were generally lower than the corresponding in vitro values. In addition, CFD-DPM predicted higher mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD) in comparison to the in vitro values. The outcomes of different in vitro methods also diverged, implying that these methods are not interchangeable. Overall, our results support the utility of CFD-DPM in the DPI development, but highlight the need for additional improvements in these models to capture all the key processes influencing aerodynamic performance of specific DPIs.
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.