ArticleBasic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology2022
Diclofenac in vitro microdialysis study comparing different experimental set-ups to improve quantitative recovery.
Article in Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of dose linearity in the systemic availability and pharmacokinetics of topically administered diclofenac: ADrug metabolism and disposition: the biological fate of chemicals · 2025Article
- Diclofenac in vitro microdialysis study comparing different experimental set-ups to improve quantitative recovery.Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Several studies investigated diclofenac tissue concentrations using microdialysis (MD). However, thorough evaluations of the optimal MD set-up for diclofenac are unavailable. Thus, this in vitro MD study aimed to compare different set-ups to improve quantitative recovery of diclofenac. In forward and reverse in vitro MD experiments with diclofenac at two concentrations (1 and 100 ng/ml), the perfusion solutions physiological saline 0.9% (PS) and human albumin 1% (HSA) were compared using tissue probes (10-mm membrane) and customized intravenous (iv) probes (30-mm membrane). Using PS, the mean relative recovery of diclofenac at 1 ng/ml was 1.6% ± 0.04% and 3.12% ± 0.00% with the tissue probe and the iv probe, respectively. The respective mean relative recovery for diclofenac at 100 ng/ml was 0.02% ± 0.01% and 0.21% ± 0.11%. Using HSA, the mean relative recovery was 314% ± 25% (tissue probe) and 1064% ± 97% (iv probe) for diclofenac at 1 ng/ml and 444% ± 91% and 1415% ± 217% for diclofenac at 100 ng/ml. In reverse dialysis using PS, the mean relative loss of diclofenac was 99.2% ± 0.5% (tissue probe) and 95.8% ± 1.7% (iv probe). Using HSA, the mean relative loss was -4.4% ± 7.2% and 0.2% ± 7.5%, respectively. PS and HSA were not suitable perfusion solutions for quantification of absolute diclofenac concentrations. Despite methodological challenges, HSA may be used for comparative experiments or bioequivalence studies.
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.