Issue link: https://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/626800
tablet," it resembles a Cialis tablet, but at 1,075 milligrams it dwarfs the 365-milligram Cialis tablet. Almond, round, and elongated tablets were made of identical blends of calcium carbonate, cabrboxymethyl cellulose, and magnesium stearate. Next, they were coated with an aqueous suspen- sion comprising hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, titanium dioxide, polyfructose, acacia gum, and talc and then pol- ished using carnauba wax. There are many ways to evaluate tablet swallowability. The most sophisticated and the ones used most often to study dysphagia are surface electromyography [4] and esophageal impedance (barium esophogram) coupled with videofluoroscopy [5]. But those methods require volumi- nous equipment and specialized personnel, so the present study used volunteer panels. In one study, the panels evalu- ated the almond tablet against a round tablet (Figure 2). In another, they evaluated the almond tablet against an elon- gated tablet (Figure 3). Each study followed the same procedure: The volunteers were told about the test's objective, coached about how to conduct the tests, and shown how to complete the ques- tionnaires. The test The evaluation began with a central location test (CLT) in which subjects were told at random which of two tablets—round versus almond or elongated versus almond— to swallow first. They were then asked to assess the diffi- culty of swallowing it and the degree to which the tablet could be felt in the throat on a scale of 1 to 10. One indi- cated that it was "very easy" and 10 that it was "very difficult" to swallow. For noticing in the throat, 1 indicated "did not notice" and 10 "could clearly feel." With each tablet, the sub- jects were supplied a carefully weighed glass of water to help them swallow it, but they were not told how much to drink. After the subjects swallowed the tablet, the glass of water was again weighed. The purpose here was to see whether there was a correlation between the reported ease of swal- lowing and the amount of water consumed. After they had swallowed and evaluated each of the two tablets individually, the subjects received two tablets (one of each type) and were asked to evaluate whether one was easier to swallow than the other and, if there was a differ- ence, the subjects' comments were recorded. They were allowed to answer "as easy" or "as difficult" to swallow. After they completed those tasks, the subjects were asked a number of questions about how they experienced swallow- ing the tablets in general (Table 1) and some demographic questions. Following the CLTs, the subjects were supplied with five tablets of each type and a questionnaire to take home. They were instructed to swallow one tablet of each type every day for 5 days and to evaluate the ease or the difficulty of swallowing the samples using the same scale as the CLTs. They were again allowed to make comments, too. Partial conclusions Round versus almond. Of the 105 panelists who com- pared the round and almond tablets, males and females Figure 1 Almond-shaped comparator tablet Length: 18.6 mm Width: 7.53 mm Height: 5.05 mm Figure 2 Round comparator tablet Diameter: 13.5 mm Height: 6.5 mm Figure 3 Elongated comparator tablet Length: 17.6 mm Width: 10.77 mm Height: 6.18 mm 36 January 2016 Tablets & Capsules