↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of Bioequivalence of Two Long-Acting 20% Oxytetracycline Formulations in Pigs

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
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.
Title
Evaluation of Bioequivalence of Two Long-Acting 20% Oxytetracycline Formulations in Pigs
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2017.00061
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhixin Lei, Qianying Liu, Bing Yang, Saeed Ahmed, Jincheng Xiong, Tingting Song, Pin Chen, Jiyue Cao, Qigai He

Abstract

The aim of this study was to explore the bioequivalence of long-acting oxytetracycline in two formulations, a reference formulation (Terramycin 20% LA, Pfizer) and a test one (Kangtekang 20% LA, Huishen). Both formulations were administered intramuscularly at 20 mg/kg body weight at each of 24 healthy animals during a two-period crossover parallel experimental design. The oxytetracycline (OTC) concentrations in plasma were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography, and the limit of quantification was 0.05 µg/ml with a recovery ratio of above 90%. Moreover, the descriptive pharmacokinetics parameters (Cmax, AUC0-144h, and AUC0-∞) were calculated and compared under analysis of variance, and 90% confidence interval (CI) were compared, except for Tmax analyzed by non-parametric tests based on Wilcoxons's signed rank test. The comparison results of Cmax, AUC0-144h, AUC0-∞, and Tmax were 5.066 ± 0.486, 5.071 ± 0.877 µg/ml, 118.926 ± 13.259, 126.179 ± 17.390 µg h/ml, 123.087 ± 13.906, 130.732 ± 18.562 µg h/ml, 0.740 ± 0.278, 0.650 ± 0.258 h, respectively, and did not reveal any significant differences. In addition, 90% CIs of these ratios for reference and test product were within an interval of 80-125%, and the relative bioavailability of test one was (94.291 ± 15.287)%. Therefore, it has been concluded that test OTC was bioequivalent to the reference formulation in pigs.

X Demographics

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 38%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Lecturer 1 8%
Professor 1 8%
Student > Postgraduate 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 23%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 15%
Chemical Engineering 1 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 38%
Attention Score in Context

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 01 May 2017.
All research outputs
#18,546,002
of 22,968,808 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#4,153
of 6,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,497
of 310,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#42
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,968,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,290 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 310,759 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.