Trial reportThe Journal of international medical research2020
Method for evaluating the human bioequivalence of acarbose based on pharmacodynamic parameters.
Trial report in The Journal of international medical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Synthesis of promising brominated flavonoids as antidiabetic and anti-glycation agents.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Effect of modified Shenqi pill combined with conventional western medicine on diabetic nephropathy and its influence on netrin-1 level and renal function.African health sciences · 2025Article
- Sample Size Determination and Study Design Impact on Dose-Scale Pharmacodynamic Bioequivalence: a Case Study Using Orlistat.The AAPS journal · 2024Article
- The Anti-Diabetic Effects of Medicinal Plants Belonging to the Liliaceae Family: Potential Alpha Glucosidase Inhibitors.Drug design, development and therapy · 2024Review
- Predictors of acarbose therapeutic efficacy in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus patients in China.BMC pharmacology & toxicology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore a method for evaluating the bioequivalence of acarbose based on pharmacodynamic parameters using a single-dose, randomized-sequence, three-way crossover study of acarbose test (T) and reference (R) formulations.
methodsBaseline-adjusted, pre-dose value deduction, and direct comparison methods were used to evaluate the geometric T/R ratios and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ln-transformed pharmacodynamic parameters to identify the most suitable evaluation system. Twelve participants were randomly divided into three groups to receive treatment in the following sequences: TRR, RTR, and RRT, each including a 7-day washout period between treatment periods. The serum glucose concentration (baseline) was determined. Pharmacodynamic parameters, including the maximum reduction in serum glucose concentrations (ΔC
resultsUsing the direct comparison method, the geometric mean ratios of C
conclusionsPre-dose value deduction and direct comparison methods can be initially considered suitable for assessing acarbose bioequivalence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.