ReviewPharmaceutics2026
Refining Bioequivalence Assessment of Topical Drug Products for Local Action: A Comparative Analysis of Tape Stripping Methodologies.
Review in Pharmaceutics, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tape stripping (TS) is a minimally invasive technique that enables in vivo assessment of drug uptake in the skin of human subjects. Whilst appropriate for evaluating the bioequivalence (BE) of topical formulations, methodological variations persist, especially regarding the inclusion of clearance time measurements. This manuscript compares the TS protocols described in several publications, including the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and Japanese guidance, containing information relating to the evaluation of utility, practicality, and scientific validity. Evidence suggests that for drugs acting locally in the skin, clearance measurements that require time-consuming practical manipulation and subsequent complex data processing offer limited value, whereas single time point uptake studies, which are more convenient and expedient, may suffice for regulatory BE assessments. This discussion offers practical guidance for BE assessment of topical dermatological products and a more expedient approach using a single time point uptake study protocol, obviating the need for clearance time assessments.
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.