ArticlePloS one2024
Physical compatibility of Xuebijing injection with 53 intravenous drugs during simulated Y-site administration.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveXuebijing injection (XBJ) is a commonly used herbal medicine injection in China. However, the physical compatibility of XBJ with other intravenous drugs remains unclear. The purpose of this research is to evaluate physical compatibility of Xuebijing injection (XBJ) with 53 intravenous drugs (including 31 Chinese medicine injections and 22 chemicals) during simulated Y-site administration.
methodsY-site administration was simulated in vitro by admixing 0.33 ml/ml XBJ with an equal volume of other diluted 53 intravenous drugs, respectively. Physical compatibility including visual inspection, Tyndall beam, particle limits, turbidity, pH, chromacity value, spectroscopic absorption of 550 nm and 420 nm (A550 nm and A420 nm) were observed and assessed at 0, 1, 2, and 4 h. Physical compatibility was defined as all solutions with no color changes, no gas evolution, particulate formation and no Tyndall beam within 4 hours, turbidity changes <0.5 nephelometric turbidity unit (NTU) compared to 0 h, particle limits allowed by the Chinese Pharmacopoeia (Ch.P) 2020 edition, pH changes <10% compared to 0, chromacity value changes <200 compared to 0 h, or photometrical changes of A420 nm <0.0400 or A550 nm <0.0100 compared to 0 h.
resultsXBJ was physically incompatible with 27 of the 53 intravenous drugs tested, 26 were compatible with XBJ for 4 h.
conclusionsXBJ should not be simultaneously co-administered with 27 of the 53 intravenous drugs during simulated Y-site. If coadministration was inevitable, flushing tube with NS or D5W before and after infusion of XBJ was needed. Assessment included visual inspection, Tyndall beam, turbidity measurement, particle counts, pH measurement, chromacity value measurement and absorption of A550 nm were proved to be valid and robust for the quality control of infusion and compatibility of Chinese herbal injection.
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.