ReviewPharmaceutics2026
Quality by Design and Process Analytical Technology for On-Demand Drug Manufacturing Through 3D Printing.
Review in Pharmaceutics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Additive manufacturing, also known as 3D printing (3DP), is intended to enable personalised medicine by producing drug products on demand at the Point of Care (PoC), with dose, drug-release profile, and geometry tailored to the individual patient. Despite its promise, widespread adoption is limited by the absence of ready-to-use quality control (QC) methods for printlets at the PoC. Process Analytical Technology (PAT) tools, particularly vibrational spectroscopic methods like Near-Infrared and Raman spectroscopy, can offer real-time monitoring to ensure the safety and consistency of printed dosage forms. Integrating these tools within a Quality-by-Design (QbD) framework can enhance process understanding, control variability, and minimise risk. Regulatory implementation and technological innovation remain essential for the broader clinical implementation of 3DP in pharmaceutical manufacturing. This review presents an overview of currently existing studies on PAT tools explored for non-destructive quality control across 3DP techniques, examines the correlation between Critical Process Parameters (CPPs), Critical Material Attributes (CMAs), and the Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs) of 3D-printed dosage forms within a QbD context, and outlines the current regulatory landscape alongside key limitations and future directions for the broader integration of 3DP into pharmaceutical development and manufacturing. Current evidence shows that PAT application remains uneven across printing technologies and is predominantly directed at final product quality control, rather than the real-time process monitoring required for a fully closed-loop QbD framework. Existing spectroscopic models are largely restricted to single formulations, printers, and APIs, and the absence of standardised validation reporting and transferability assessments represents a key barrier to routine implementation.
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.