Errors in reporting on dissolution research: methodological and statistical implications

被引:2
|
作者
Jasinska-Stroschein, Magdalena [1 ]
Kurczewska, Urszula [1 ]
Orszulak-Michalak, Daria [1 ]
机构
[1] Med Univ Lodz, Dept Biopharm, Muszynskiego 1, Lodz, Poland
关键词
Dissolution checklist; dissolution study; reporting errors; DOSAGE FORMS; PROFILE;
D O I
10.1080/10837450.2016.1194858
中图分类号
R9 [药学];
学科分类号
1007 ;
摘要
Objective:In vitro dissolution testing provides useful information at clinical and preclinical stages of the drug development process.Methods: The study includes pharmaceutical papers on dissolution research published in Polish journals between 2010 and 2015. They were analyzed with regard to information provided by authors about chosen methods, performed validation, statistical reporting or assumptions used to properly compare release profiles considering the present guideline documents addressed to dissolution methodology and its validation.Results: Of all the papers included in the study, 23.86% presented at least one set of validation parameters, 63.64% gave the results of the weight uniformity test, 55.68% content determination, 97.73% dissolution testing conditions, and 50% discussed a comparison of release profiles. The assumptions for methods used to compare dissolution profiles were discussed in 6.82% of papers. By means of example analyses, we demonstrate that the outcome can be influenced by the violation of several assumptions or selection of an improper method to compare dissolution profiles.Discussion and conclusion: A clearer description of the procedures would undoubtedly increase the quality of papers in this area.
引用
收藏
页码:103 / 110
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Statistical Reporting Errors and Collaboration on Statistical Analyses in Psychological Science
    Veldkamp, Coosje L. S.
    Nuijten, Michele B.
    Dominguez-Alvarez, Linda
    van Assen, Marcel A. L. M.
    Wicherts, Jelte M.
    PLOS ONE, 2014, 9 (12):
  • [2] Frequent methodological errors in clinical research
    Silva Aycaguer, L. C.
    MEDICINA INTENSIVA, 2018, 42 (09) : 541 - 546
  • [3] METHODOLOGICAL ERRORS IN MEDICAL-RESEARCH
    DIFFEY, BL
    CLINICAL PHYSICS AND PHYSIOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 1991, 12 (01): : 95 - 96
  • [4] Statistical and methodological considerations for reporting RCTs in medical literature
    Lee, Sangseok
    Kang, Hyun
    KOREAN JOURNAL OF ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2015, 68 (02) : 106 - 115
  • [5] Methodological errors of statistical measurements of absolute reactor power
    Shvetsov, D. M.
    Polevoi, V. B.
    Sapelkina, T. A.
    ATOMIC ENERGY, 2008, 105 (06) : 397 - 401
  • [6] Methodological errors of statistical measurements of absolute reactor power
    D. M. Shvetsov
    V. B. Polevoi
    T. A. Sapelkina
    Atomic Energy, 2008, 105 : 397 - 401
  • [7] Statistical errors in immunologic research
    Murphy, JR
    JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY, 2004, 114 (06) : 1259 - 1264
  • [8] Methodological errors in corruption research: Recommendations for future research
    Delios, Andrew
    Malesky, Edmund J.
    Yu, Shu
    Riddler, Griffin
    JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS STUDIES, 2024, 55 (02) : 235 - 251
  • [9] Methodological errors in corruption research: Recommendations for future research
    Andrew Delios
    Edmund J. Malesky
    Shu Yu
    Griffin Riddler
    Journal of International Business Studies, 2024, 55 : 235 - 251
  • [10] Reporting of methodological studies in health research: a protocol for the development of the MethodologIcal STudy reportIng Checklist (MISTIC)
    Lawson, Daeria O.
    Puljak, Livia
    Pieper, Dawid
    Schandelmaier, Stefan
    Collins, Gary S.
    Brignardello-Petersen, Romina
    Moher, David
    Tugwell, Peter
    Welch, Vivian A.
    Samaan, Zainab
    Thombs, Brett D.
    Norskov, Anders K.
    Jakobsen, Janus C.
    Allison, David B.
    Mayo-Wilson, Evan
    Young, Taryn
    Chan, An-Wen
    Briel, Matthias
    Guyatt, Gordon H.
    Thabane, Lehana
    Mbuagbaw, Lawrence
    BMJ OPEN, 2020, 10 (12):