ArticleThe AAPS journal2023
Dissolution Profile Similarity Assessment-Best Practices, Decision Trees and Global Harmonization.
Article in The AAPS journal, 2023. 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.
- Dissolution Profiles Comparison Using Various Model Independent Statistical Approaches: Can We Increase Chance of Similarity?Pharmaceutical research · 2025Article
- Dissolution Profiles Comparison Using Conventional and Bias Corrected and Accelerated f2 Bootstrap Approaches with Different Software's: Impact of Variability, Sample Size and Number of Bootstraps.AAPS PharmSciTech · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During the write-up of the meeting summary reports from the 2019 dissolution similarity workshop held at the University of Maryland's Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (M-CERSI), several coauthors continued their discussions to develop a "best-practice" document defining the steps required to assess dissolution profiles in support of certain biowaivers and postapproval changes. In previous reports, current challenges related to dissolution profile studies were discussed such that the steps outlined in the two flow charts ("decision trees") presented here can be applied. These decision trees include both recommendations for the use of equivalence procedures between reference and test products as well as application of the dissolution safe space concept. Common approaches towards establishing dissolution safe spaces are described. This paper encourages the preparation of protocols clearly describing why and how testing is performed along with the expected pass/fail criteria prior to generating data on the materials to be evaluated. The target audience of this manuscript includes CMC regulatory scientists, laboratory analysts, as well as statisticians from industry and regulatory health agencies involved in the assessment of product quality via in vitro dissolution testing. Building upon previous publications, this manuscript provides a solution to the current ambiguity related to dissolution profile comparison. The principles outlined in this and previous manuscripts provide a basis for global regulatory alignment in the application of dissolution profile assessment to support manufacturing changes and biowaiver requests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37084114What 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.