ArticleAAPS PharmSciTech2025
Finite Dose In Vitro Permeation Testing: Significance of Occluding the Donor compartment, a Case study.
Article in AAPS PharmSciTech, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The evaporation of the solvent induces significant changes in formulation, directly impacting its performance. The performance of topical products is determined by the interplay between their inherent quality attributes and the transformations that occur due to solvent evaporation when applied to the skin in clinically relevant doses. To accurately assess, in vivo performance, it is advisable to apply smaller doses to the skin and keep the donor compartment open to enable evaporation of solvents while carrying out in vitro permeation tests. This manuscript highlights the critical role of solvent evaporation in differentiating the performance of two compositionally distinct products. One gel formulation contained alcohol, while the other did not. Although both exhibited similar quality attributes, their drying profiles varied significantly. Permeation studies conducted with closed donor compartments (Evaporation-disabled (ED)) failed to reveal these differences. However, when the donor compartments were exposed to the atmosphere to allow evaporation (Evaporation-enabled (EN)), the performance differences between the two products became evident.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40199792What 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.