MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1689672638 · doi:10.25011/cim.v32i6.10657

In vitro antibacterial activity of some systemic and topical antihistaminic preparations

2009· article· en· W1689672638 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jülide Sedef Göçmen, Ünase Büyükkoçak, Osman Çağlayan

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and investigative medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicAdvancements in Transdermal Drug Delivery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIn vitroPharmacologyMedicineChemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: In vitro antibacterial activity of topical and systemic antihistaminic preparations containing different active substrates against the standard strains of two bacteria was evaluated. METHODS: Four topical and 3 systemic preparations containing pheniramine maleate, chlorophenoxamine hydrochloride, and diphenhydramine hydrochloride were studied. The antibacterial activities of these preparations against strains of S. aureus (American Type Culture Collection, ATCC 29213) and S. epidermidis (ATCC 25212) were tested using the disc diffusion method. In addition, the Minimal Innhibitory Concentration (MIC) and Minimal Bactericidal Concentration (MBC) of parenteral preparations for these two bacteria were determined. RESULTS: Pheniramine maleate-topical and pheniramine maleate-systemic had no activity against bacteria, but the others showed various rates of activity. Chlorophenoxamine hydrochloride-topical and chlorophenoxamine hydrochloride-systemic were the most effective (P < 0.05). Despite the same active substrate content, diphenhydramine hydrochloride-topical-1 and diphenhydramine hydrochloride-topical-2 yielded different results when they were compared with each other or with the other preparations. Diphenhydramine hydrochloride-topical-2 had a relatively higher rate of activity than diphenhydramine hydrochloride-topical-1. Inhibition zone diameters were 16.9+/-1.5 mm 12.3+/-0.5 mm for S .aureus, 17.4+/-1.0 mm 0 mm for S .epidermidis respectively (P < 0.05). MIC values of parenteral preparations were equal to or above 125 ?g/ml. CONCLUSION: MIC values of parenteral preparations were higher than their blood levels in clinical use. Thus, effects of parenteral preparations may not have been reflected in routine clinical practice. However, topical forms have antibacterial activity due to additive substrates and the use of high concentration levels at the site of application. Therefore, in selection of topical forms for appropriate cases, these effects should also be taken into consideration. The antibacterial activity of topical antihistaminic preparations may be useful in certain dermatological pathology.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.692
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.259
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and investigative medicineSame topicAdvancements in Transdermal Drug DeliveryFrench-language works237,207