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.

36/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Treatments

Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models

Plain-language summary

The present study was to develop donepezil loaded nanosuspension for direct olfactory administration which reaches the brain and determining safety profile in Sprague-Dawley rats. Nanosuspension was prepared by ionic-crosslinking method. The developed nanosuspension was intranasally instilled into the nostrils of rats with the help of cannula (size 18/20) so that drug reached into the brain directly via nose to brain pathway. The nanosuspension had an average size of 150-200nm with a polydispersity index of 0.341. The donepezil concentration was estimated in the brain homogenate using HPLC method. The Cmax showed concentration of donepezil in brain and plasma as 7.2±0.86 and 82.8±5.42ng/ml, respectively, for drug suspension and concentration of donepezil in brain and plasma as 147.54±25.08 and 183.451±13.45ng/ml, respectively, for nanosuspension at same dose of 0.5mg/ml when administered intranasally (p<0.05). The in vivo safety evaluation studies showed that no mortality, hematological changes, body weight variations and toxicity in animals was observed, when nanosuspension was administered in different doses as compared to control group (normal saline). Donepezil loaded chitosan nanosuspension is a potential new delivery system for treatment of Alzheimer's disease, when transported via olfactory nasal pathway to the brain.

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

APA 7th

Bhavna, Md, S., Ali, M., Ali, R., Bhatnagar, A., Baboota, S., et al. (2014). Donepezil nanosuspension intended for nose to brain targeting: In vitro and in vivo safety evaluation. International journal of biological macromolecules. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2014.03.022

Vancouver

Bhavna, Md S, Ali M, Ali R, Bhatnagar A, Baboota S, et al. Donepezil nanosuspension intended for nose to brain targeting: In vitro and in vivo safety evaluation. International journal of biological macromolecules. 2014. doi:10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2014.03.022. PMID: 24705169.

BibTeX

@article{bhavna2014-24705169,
  author  = {Bhavna and Md, S. and Ali, M. and Ali, R. and Bhatnagar, A. and Baboota, S. and Ali, J.},
  title   = {{Donepezil nanosuspension intended for nose to brain targeting: In vitro and in vivo safety evaluation}},
  journal = {International journal of biological macromolecules},
  year    = {2014},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2014.03.022},
  pmid    = {24705169},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2014.03.022}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. 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 gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

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 in vivo safety evaluation studies showed that no mortality, hematological changes, body weight variations and toxicity in animals was observed, when nanosuspension was administered in different doses as compared to control group (normal saline).

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

Study details

Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 36/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported 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 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (International journal of biological macromolecules)
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	1 / 5	2014 — within 20 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	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	0 / 3	Laboratory or animal study (title names “in vitro”) — scores zero
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 24705169)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	21 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100.
Total	36 / 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 “targeting”

3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “targeting”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Treatments

Where this led: Donepezil on the treatments page — its current status, approval date, side-effect rate and list price, kept up to date.

See all studies in Treatments →