Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39347293›Full record

ReviewCureus2024

Mastering Quality: Uniting Risk Assessment With Quality by Design (QbD) Principles for Pharmaceutical Excellence.

Abdul M Kaleem, Jebastin Koilpillai, Damodharan Narayanasamy

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Abdul M KaleemPharmacy, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai, IND.
Jebastin KoilpillaiPharmacy, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai, IND.
Damodharan NarayanasamyPharmaceutics, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this article is to present ideas and tools of risk assessment that can be implemented to overcome various pharmaceutical quality challenges. These elements cover the development, production, distribution, inspection, and reporting of review procedures for drug substances, drug products, and biological products at every stage of their lifecycle. In light of the constant requirement to ensure the drug's efficacy, safety, and quality, the pharmaceutical sector is always evolving. A key strategy for attaining pharmaceutical excellence in this dynamic environment is incorporating novel methods like quality by design (QbD) and risk assessment. Risk assessment is a methodical strategy to locate, assess, and minimize any risks in the manufacturing and development of pharmaceuticals. On the other hand, QbD principles place more emphasis on end-product testing and place it in the context of designing quality into the product from the beginning. The major goal of this paper is to address and examine the integration of risk assessment approaches with the QbD principle workflow to ensure pharmaceutical quality. Recent articles on how risk assessment has been used in pharmaceuticals were evaluated. To provide a useful overview, the various assessment methodologies have been highlighted, emphasizing their benefits and drawbacks.

Indexed as

pharmaceutical developmentquality by designquality controlrisk assessment toolsrisk management

Identifiers

PMID39347293
PMCPMC11439473

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.