Table 4.
Statistical comparison of the results obtained by the proposed methods and the reported method for determination of MIC, MET and NYS in their pharmaceutical formulation
| Parameters | HPLC method | HPTLC method | Reported method [6] | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIC | NYS | MIC | NYS | MIC | NYS | |
| Monicure plus® vaginal suppository | ||||||
| Mean % | 102.28 | 101.28 | 102.03 | 101.03 | 102.37 | 101.01 |
| SD | 0.33 | 0.66 | 0.54 | 0.44 | 0.43 | 0.65 |
| n | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| Student’s t-test (2.228)a | 0.410 | 0.710 | 1.210 | 0.080 | – | – |
| F-value (5.050)a | 1.720 | 1.010 | 1.560 | 2.220 | – | – |
| Parameters | HPLC method | HPTLC method | Reported method [10] | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MET | NYS | MET | NYS | MET | NYS | |
| Amrizole N® vaginal suppository | ||||||
| Mean % | 102.01 | 99.08 | 102.32 | 99.11 | 102.39 | 99.08 |
| SD | 0.62 | 0.57 | 0.27 | 0.86 | 0.31 | 0.59 |
| n | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| Student’s t-test (2.228)a | 1.380 | 0.002 | 0.430 | 0.070 | – | – |
|
F-value (5.050)a |
3.940 | 1.060 | 1.290 | 2.130 | – | – |
aFigures in parentheses represent the corresponding tabulated of t and F at P = 0.05