ArticlePharmaceutics2022
Comparison of Nozzle-Based and Nozzle-Free Electrospinning for Preparation of Fast-Dissolving Nanofibers Loaded with Ciprofloxacin.
Article in Pharmaceutics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Electrospinning of nanofibers and the functional potential of starch: a comprehensive review.Discover nano · 2026Review
- Review
- Towards Enhanced Electrospinning of Alginate-Can Recent Strategies Overcome Limitations? A Review.Polymers · 2025Review
- BCS II/IV antibiotics blended with SPEEK nanofibrous mat as an alternative for recurrent wound care: AnCurrent research in pharmacology and drug discovery · 2025Article
- Electrospinning of Potential Medical Devices (Wound Dressings, Tissue Engineering Scaffolds, Face Masks) and Their Regulatory Approach.Pharmaceutics · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study aimed to prepare ciprofloxacin-loaded polyvinylpyrrolidone electrospun nanofibers for oral drug delivery, using a conventional nozzle-based and a lab-built nozzle-free electrospinning equipment. To produce nanofibers, electrospinning is the process most often used. However, from the industry's point of view, conventional electrospinning does not have sufficiently high productivity. By omitting the nozzle, productivity can be increased, and so the development of nozzle-free processes is worthwhile. In this study, a solution of ciprofloxacin and polyvinylpyrrolidone was electrospun under similar conditions, using both single-nozzle and nozzle-free methods. The two electrospinning methods were compared by investigating the morphological and physicochemical properties, homogeneity, in vitro drug release, and cytotoxicity. The stability of the nanofibers was monitored from different aspects in a 26 month stability study. The results showed that the use of the nozzle-free electrospinning was preferable due to a higher throughput, improved homogeneity, and the enhanced stability of nanofiber mats, compared to the nozzle-based method. Nevertheless, fast dissolving nanofibers loaded with poorly water-soluble ciprofloxacin were produced by both electrospinning methods. The beneficial properties of these nanofibers can be exploited in innovative drug development; e.g., nanofibers can be formulated into orodispersible films or per os tablets.
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.