ArticleEuropean journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice2025
Comparing visual inspection methods for parenteral products in hospital pharmacy: between reliability, cost, and operator formation considerations.
Article in European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has led to unforeseen and novel manifestations, as illustrated by the management of drug shortages through the development of hospital production of sterile pharmaceutical preparations (P2S). Visual inspection of P2S is a release control whose methods are described in monographs of the European Pharmacopoeia (2.9.20) and the United States Pharmacopeia (1790). However, these non-automated visual methods require training and proficiency testing of personnel. The main objective of this work was to compare the reliability and speed of analysis of two visual methods and an automated method for detecting visible particles by image analysis in P2S. Furthermore, these methods were used to evaluate sources of particulate contamination during pre-production processes (washing, disinfection, depyrogenation) and production (filling, capping). MATERIALS AND
methodsThree pharmacy technicians examined 41 clear glass vials of type I, 10 and/or 50 mL through manual visual inspection (MVI), semi-automated (SAVI), and automated (AVI) inspection. The vials were distributed as follows: (i) 16 vials of water for injection containing either glass particles (224 µm or 600 µm), stopper fragments, or textile fibres; (ii) five sterile injectable specialties; (iii) 20 vials of water for injection prepared under different pre-production conditions. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: MVI and SAVI detected 100% of visible particles compared with 28% for AVI, which showed a deficiency in detecting textile fibres. All three methods correctly analysed P2S that did not contain visible particles. The three methods detected particles in vials maintained under International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9 pre-production conditions. However, detections by (i) MVI and SAVI, and by (ii) AVI of particles contained in vials maintained under ISO 8 pre-production conditions were deemed satisfactory and unsatisfactory, respectively.
conclusionThe importance of visual inspection of P2S requires rapid, sensitive, and reliable detection methods. In this context, MVI and SAVI have proven to be more effective than AVI for a more competitive financial, training, and implementation investment.
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.