paper critique
Research Paper Critique
Overcoming Biological Barriers 2013-2014
Abstract
Is the abstract a concise summary?
Does it focus on results and conclusions?
The abstract of this paper is concise. The aim of this study was made clear. It was clear from the abstract that the aim of this paper was to develop chitosan microspheres of verapamil to administer it intranasally in order to enhance its low bioavailability.
It was an interesting fact that the abstract started by talking about chitosan microspheres and their use. This makes it easier for the reader to understand the title and what the study is actually developing. The abstract mentioned how the study was done. All the parameters investigated in this study were mentioned in a concise way in the abstract again giving the reader an overview of the paper. One could argue that thorough detail was included regarding the method; nonetheless this was done in an appropriate and concise way. It was clear that two methods were used in order to prepare the chitosan microspheres.
The author did focus on the results and conclusion. It was clear to the reader that the chitosan microspheres prepared had particle size suitable for nasal deposition and that the spray drying technique was superior to the precipitation technique in achieving higher entrapment efficiency of the drug. It is also clear that bioavailability studies demonstrated that nasal microspheres exhibited higher bioavailability when compared to nasal solution of verapamil.
Morphological studies were done, however this was not mentioned in the abstract. This could be due to the fact that the author did not want to include too much information in the abstract.
The abstract is ended with a concluding sentence which summarizes nicely the results/ conclusion of this study.
To a good extent the abstract of the study was representative of the article. Who reads it can understand the overall purpose and method
Overcoming Biological Barriers 2013-2014
Abstract
Is the abstract a concise summary?
Does it focus on results and conclusions?
The abstract of this paper is concise. The aim of this study was made clear. It was clear from the abstract that the aim of this paper was to develop chitosan microspheres of verapamil to administer it intranasally in order to enhance its low bioavailability.
It was an interesting fact that the abstract started by talking about chitosan microspheres and their use. This makes it easier for the reader to understand the title and what the study is actually developing. The abstract mentioned how the study was done. All the parameters investigated in this study were mentioned in a concise way in the abstract again giving the reader an overview of the paper. One could argue that thorough detail was included regarding the method; nonetheless this was done in an appropriate and concise way. It was clear that two methods were used in order to prepare the chitosan microspheres.
The author did focus on the results and conclusion. It was clear to the reader that the chitosan microspheres prepared had particle size suitable for nasal deposition and that the spray drying technique was superior to the precipitation technique in achieving higher entrapment efficiency of the drug. It is also clear that bioavailability studies demonstrated that nasal microspheres exhibited higher bioavailability when compared to nasal solution of verapamil.
Morphological studies were done, however this was not mentioned in the abstract. This could be due to the fact that the author did not want to include too much information in the abstract.
The abstract is ended with a concluding sentence which summarizes nicely the results/ conclusion of this study.
To a good extent the abstract of the study was representative of the article. Who reads it can understand the overall purpose and method