ArticlePharmaceutics2022
Performance of Tablet Splitters, Crushers, and Grinders in Relation to Personalised Medication with Tablets.
Article in Pharmaceutics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Challenges and Considerations in Manipulating Oral Dosage Forms in Paediatric Healthcare Settings: A Narrative Review.Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992) · 2025Review
- Extemporaneous Compounding, Pharmacy Preparations and Related Product Care in the Netherlands.Pharmaceutics · 2025Review
- A review of precision medicine in developing pharmaceutical products: Perspectives and opportunities.International journal of pharmaceutics · 2025Review
- Article
- The preferences of people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis on riluzole treatment in Europe.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Analysis of the Physical Characteristics of an Anhydrous Vehicle for Compounded Pediatric Oral Liquids.Pharmaceutics · 2023Article
- A novel home-based method for preparing suspensions of anti-TB drugs.The international journal of tuberculosis and lung disease : the official journal of the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Swallowing problems and the required dose adaptations needed to obtain optimal pharmacotherapy may be a hurdle in the use of tablets in daily clinical practice. Tablet splitting, crushing, or grinding is often applied to personalise medication, especially for the elderly and children. In this study, the performance of different types of (commercially available) devices was studied. Included were splitters, screwcap crushers, manual grinders, and electric grinders. Unscored tablets without active ingredient were prepared, with a diameter of 9 and 13 mm and a hardness of 100-220 N. Tablets were split into two parts and the difference in weight was measured. The time needed to pulverise the tablets (crush time) was recorded. The residue remaining in the device (loss) was measured. The powder was sieved to obtain a particle fraction >600 µm and <600 µm. The median particle size and particle size distribution of the later fraction were determined using laser diffraction analysis. Splitting tablets into two equal parts appeared to be difficult with the devices tested. Most screwcap grinders yielded a coarse powder containing larger chunks. Manual and especially electric grinders produced a finer powder, making it suitable for administration via an enteral feeding tube as well as for use in individualised preparations such as capsules. In conclusion, for domestic and incidental use, a screwcap crusher may provide sufficient size reduction, while for the more demanding regular use in hospitals and nursing residences, a manual or electric grinder is preferred.
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.