You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
An in vitro model for the evaluation of the adhesion of solid oral dosage forms to the oesophagus
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Pharmaceutics, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2013.02.017 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John D. Smart, Sian Dunkley, John Tsibouklis, Simon Young |
| Abstract |
Adhesion of solid oral dosage forms to the oesophagus can be a disadvantage when delivering drugs that may cause oesophageal damage, or can be an advantage when developing localised therapies for this region. In this study, apparatus to investigate coatings that may influence oesophageal retention was developed and evaluated. The apparatus incorporated a section of porcine oesophageal mucosa held flat by the application of a gentle vacuum and kept moist by the application of a simulated saliva solution. The resistance to the application of more physiologically relevant shear stresses was evaluated. Using a range of materials it was found that differences in oesophageal adhesion could be identified. Materials like sodium alginate were highly adhesive and had a tendency to re-adhere while paraffin waxes showed no adhesion. The rapid loss of the polymer coat from the surface for water swellable materials was identified as an issue. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 20 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 14% |
| Researcher | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 38% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 October 2014.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Pharmaceutics
#6,930
of 8,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,084
of 206,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Pharmaceutics
#52
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,179 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 206,327 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.