This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

45/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Treatments

Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models

Plain-language summary

Rivastigmine hydrogen tartrate (RHT), one of the potential cholinesterase inhibitors, has received great attention as a new drug candidate for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. However, the bioavailability of RHT from the conventional pharmaceutical forms is low because of the presence of the blood brain barrier. The main aim of the present study was to prepare positively charged Eudragit RL 100 nanoparticles as a model scaffold for providing a sustained release profile for RHT. The formulations were evaluated in terms of particle size, zeta potential, surface morphology, X-ray diffraction (XRD), Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). Drug entrapment efficiency and in vitro release properties of lyophilized nanoparticles were also examined. The resulting formulations were found to be in the size range of 118 nm to 154 nm and zeta potential was positive (+22.5 to 30 mV). Nanoparticles showed the entrapment efficiency from 38.40 ± 8.94 to 62.00 ± 2.78%. An increase in the mean particle size and the entrapment efficiency was observed with an increase in the amount of polymer. The FTIR, XRD, and DSC results ruled out any chemical interaction between the drug and Eudragit RL100 polymer. RHT nanoparticles containing low ratio of polymer to drug (4:1) presented a faster drug release and on the contrary, nanoparticles containing high ratio of polymer to drug (10:1) were able to give a more sustained release of the drug. The study revealed that RHT nanoparticles were capable of releasing the drug in a prolonged period of time and increasing the drug bioavailability.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Salatin, S., Barar, J., Barzegar-Jalali, M., Adibkia, K., Kiafar, F., & Jelvehgari, M. (2017). Development of a nanoprecipitation method for the entrapment of a very water soluble drug into Eudragit RL nanoparticles. Research in pharmaceutical sciences. https://doi.org/10.4103/1735-5362.199041

Vancouver

Salatin S, Barar J, Barzegar-Jalali M, Adibkia K, Kiafar F, Jelvehgari M. Development of a nanoprecipitation method for the entrapment of a very water soluble drug into Eudragit RL nanoparticles. Research in pharmaceutical sciences. 2017. doi:10.4103/1735-5362.199041. PMID: 28255308.

BibTeX

@article{salatin2017-28255308,
  author  = {Salatin, S. and Barar, J. and Barzegar-Jalali, M. and Adibkia, K. and Kiafar, F. and Jelvehgari, M.},
  title   = {{Development of a nanoprecipitation method for the entrapment of a very water soluble drug into Eudragit RL nanoparticles}},
  journal = {Research in pharmaceutical sciences},
  year    = {2017},
  doi     = {10.4103/1735-5362.199041},
  pmid    = {28255308},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.4103/1735-5362.199041}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: our record does not state a study design, so check the methods section of the original before weighing the result.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record reports “2.78%”. A statistically significant result can still be small in daily life.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

The FTIR, XRD, and DSC results ruled out any chemical interaction between the drug and Eudragit RL100 polymer.
The study revealed that RHT nanoparticles were capable of releasing the drug in a prolonged period of time and increasing the drug bioavailability.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →

Study details

Effect size2.78%
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 45/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Research in pharmaceutical sciences)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	0 / 12	No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence	1 / 5	Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	2 / 5	2017 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	0 / 4	Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported	2 / 3	Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people	0 / 3	Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	— / 7	No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year	— / 5	No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year	— / 6	No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here	— / 6	Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited	— / 4	No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record	— / 4	Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record	— / 3	No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 28255308)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Points	26 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100.
Total	45 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Treatments from nearby years

Also tagged “nanoparticles”

2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “nanoparticles”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Treatments

See all studies in Treatments →