Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 359

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 332 of the 332 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Impact of gastrointestinal tract variability on oral drug absorption and pharmacokinetics: An UNGAP review

Open access
Vinarov, Zahari, Abdallah, Mohammad, Agundez, José A.G., Allegaert, Karel, Basit, Abdul W., Braeckmans, Marlies, Ceulemans, Jens, Corsetti, Maura, Griffin, Brendan T., Grimm, Michael, Keszthelyi, Daniel, Koziolek, Mirko, Madla, Christine M., Matthys, Christophe, McCoubrey, Laura E., Mitra, Amitava, Reppas, Christos, Stappaerts, Jef, Steenackers, Nele, Trevaskis, Natalie L., Vanuytsel, Tim, Vertzoni, Maria, Weitschies, Werner, Wilson, Clive, Augustijns, Patrick·2021·European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences

Abstract

The absorption of oral drugs is frequently plagued by significant variability with potentially serious therapeutic consequences. The source of variability can be traced back to interindividual variability in physiology, differences in special populations (age- and disease-dependent), drug and formulation properties, or food-drug interactions. Clinical evidence for the impact of some of these factors on drug pharmacokinetic variability is mounting: e.g. gastric pH and emptying time, small intestinal fluid properties, differences in pediatrics and the elderly, and surgical changes in gastrointestinal anatomy. However, the link of colonic factors variability (transit time, fluid composition, microbiome), sex differences (male vs. female) and gut-related diseases (chronic constipation, anorexia and cachexia) to drug absorption variability has not been firmly established yet. At the same time, a way to decrease oral drug pharmacokinetic variability is provided by the pharmaceutical industry: clinical evidence suggests that formulation approaches employed during drug development can decrease the variability in oral exposure. This review outlines the main drivers of oral drug exposure variability and potential approaches to overcome them, while highlighting existing knowledge gaps and guiding future studies in this area.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ejps.2021.105812

Cites

332 of 332 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 332 references

Cited by

See all 359

Metadata

Authors
Vinarov, Z., Abdallah, M., Agundez, J. A. G., Allegaert, K., Basit, A. W., Braeckmans, M., Ceulemans, J., Corsetti, M., Griffin, B. T., Grimm, M., Keszthelyi, D., Koziolek, M., Madla, C. M., Matthys, C., McCoubrey, L. E., Mitra, A., Reppas, C., Stappaerts, J., Steenackers, N., Trevaskis, N. L., Vanuytsel, T., Vertzoni, M., Weitschies, W., Wilson, C., & Augustijns, P.
Venue
European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-07
Volume
162
Pages
105812
ISSN
0928-0987 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3138845742
Cited by
359
References
332
FWCI
17.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Impact of gastrointestinal tract variability on oral drug absorption and pharmacokinetics: An UNGAP review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ejps.2021.105812
The paper
Vinarov, Z., Abdallah, M., Agundez, J. A. G., Allegaert, K., Basit, A. W., Braeckmans, M., Ceulemans, J., Corsetti, M., Griffin, B. T., Grimm, M., Keszthelyi, D., Koziolek, M., Madla, C. M., Matthys, C., McCoubrey, L. E., Mitra, A., Reppas, C., Stappaerts, J., Steenackers, N., . . . Augustijns, P. (2021). Impact of gastrointestinal tract variability on oral drug absorption and pharmacokinetics: An UNGAP review. European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2021.105812

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.