Tablet Splitting and Weight Uniformity of Half-Tablets of 4 Medications in Pharmacy Practice
Abstract
Background: Tablet splitting is a common practice for multiple reasons including cost savings; however, it does not necessarily result in weight-uniform half-tablets. Objectives: To determine weight uniformity of half-tablets resulting from splitting 4 products available in the Jordanian market and investigate the effect of tablet characteristics on weight uniformity of half-tablets. Methods: Ten random tablets each of warfarin 5 mg, digoxin 0.25 mg, phenobarbital 30 mg, and prednisolone 5 mg were weighed and split by 6 PharmD students using a knife. The resulting half-tablets were weighed and evaluated for weight uniformity. Other relevant physical characteristics of the 4 products were measured. Results: The average tablet hardness of the sampled tablets ranged from 40.3 N to 68.9 N. Digoxin, phenobarbital, and prednisolone half-tablets failed the weight uniformity test; however, warfarin half-tablets passed. Digoxin, warfarin, and phenobarbital tablets had a score line and warfarin tablets had the deepest score line of 0.81 mm. Conclusion: Splitting warfarin tablets produces weight-uniform half-tablets that may possibly be attributed to the hardness and the presence of a deep score line. Digoxin, phenobarbital, and prednisolone tablet splitting produces highly weight variable half-tablets. This can be of clinical significance in the case of the narrow therapeutic index medication digoxin.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Small tablets with no score line, such as phenobarbital tablets, had poor splitting outcomes in terms of accuracy and percentage content.
“small tablets with no score line, such as phenobarbital tablets, had poor splitting outcomes in terms of accuracy and percentage content.32”
From Does splitting a tablet obtain an accurate dose? A systematic review and meta‐ analysis (2022) · cites this paper as [32]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Does splitting a tablet obtain an accurate dose? A systematic review and meta‐ analysis
Chaudhri, K., Kearney, M., Di Tanna, G. L., Gnanenthiran, S. R., Day, R. O., Rodgers, A., & Atkins, E. R. (2022) · Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research · doi:10.1002/jppr.1843 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
- Authors
- Tahaineh, L. M., & Gharaibeh, S. F.
- Affiliations
- Jordan University of Science and Technology (JO)
- Corresponding author
- Tahaineh, Linda M.
- Venue
- Journal of Pharmacy Practice
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-04-27
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 471-476
- ISSN
- 0897-1900 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-1937
- OpenAlex
- W2026879507
- Cited by
- 54
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 2.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Pharmacy Practice (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacy and Medical Practices
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pharmaceutical studies and practices
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Pharmaceutical Quality and Counterfeiting
- Keywords
- tablet splitting, weight uniformity, warfarin, digoxin, phenobarbital, prednisolone, tablet hardness, narrow therapeutic index drugs
- MeSH terms
- Anti-Arrhythmia Agents, Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Anticoagulants, Digoxin, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Drug Compounding, Pharmaceutical Preparations, Humans, Hypnotics and Sedatives, Jordan, Phenobarbital, Prednisolone, Quality Control, Tablets, Warfarin, Reproducibility of Results, Cost Savings
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