IOSR Journal of Engineering (IOSRJEN)

ISSN: 2250-3021 Volume 2, Issue 8 (August 2012), PP 33-41

www.iosrjen.org
www.iosrjen.org 33 | P a g e
On sandwich results for some subclasses of analytic functions
involving certain linear operator

Amnah Shammaky
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia

Abstract : - The purpose of this paper is to derive some subordination and superordination results for certain
normalized analytic functions in the open unit disk, acted upon by CarlsonShaffer operator. Relevant
connections of the results, which are presented in the paper, with various known results are also considered
Keywords : - differential subordinations ; differential superordinations ; dominant ; subordinant

I. INTRODUCTION
Let H be the class of functions analytic in the open unit disk { } 1 : < = A z z . Let | | n a H , be the
subclass of Hconsisting of functions of the form
( ) ...
1
1
+ + + =
+
+
n
n
n
n
z a z a a z f
Let A be the subclass of H consisting of functions of the form
( ) ...
2
2
+ + = z a a z f
and we let
( ) { }. ... ,
2
2
1
1
+ + + = e =
+
+
+
+
m
m
m
m m
z a z a z z f H f A
With a view to recalling the principle of subordination between analytic functions, let the
functions f and g be analytic in A.Then we say that the function f is subordinate to g if there exists a
Schwarz function ( ), z e analytic in A with
( ) 0 0 = e and ( ) 1 < z e ( ) , A e z
such that

( ) ( ) ( ) z g z f e =

( ) . A e z

We denote this subordination by
g f or ( ) ( ) z g z f ( ) A e z .
In particular, if the function g is univalent in A, the above subordination is equivalent to
( ) ( ) 0 0 g f = and ( ) ( ) A c A g f .
Let H h p e , and let

( ) C C z t s r A
3
: ; , , | . If p and ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) z z p z z p z z p ; , ,
2
' ' ' | are univalent and
if p satisfies the second-order superordination
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) z z p z z p z z p z h ; , ,
2
' ' ' | , (1)

then p is a solution of the differential superordination (1). (If f subordinate to , F then F is called
to be superordinate to f .) An analytic function q is called a subordinant if p q for all p satisfying (1). An
univalent subordinant q
~
that satisfies q q
~
for all subordinants q of (1) is said to be the best subordinant.
Recently, Miller and Mocanu [7] obtained conditions on q h, and | or which the following implication holds
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) . ; , ,
2
z p z q z z p z z p z z p z h ' ' ' |
Using the results of Miller and Mocanu [7], Bulboaca[2] considered certain classes of first-
order differential superordinations as well as superordination-preserving integral operators [3]. Ali et al. [1]
have used the results of Bulboaca [2] and obtained sufficient conditions for certain normalized analytic
functions ( ) z f to satisfy
( )
( )
( )
( ) ,
2 1
z q
z f
z f z
z q
'

On sandwich results for some subclasses of analytic functions involving certain linear operator
www.iosrjen.org 34 | P a g e
where

1
q

and

2
q are given univalent functions in A with ( ) 1 0
1
= q and ( ) . 1 0
2
= q Shanmugam et al. [9]
obtained sufficient conditions for a normalized analytic functions ( ) z f to satisfy
( )
( )
( )
( ) ,
2 1
z q
z f z
z f
z q
'

and
where

1
q

and

2
q are given univalent functions in A with ( ) 1 0
1
= q and ( ) . 1 0
2
= q

While Obradovic and Owa [8] obtained subordination results with the quantity . A detailed investing- ation of
starlike functions of complex order and convex functions of complex order using Briot Bouquet differential
subordination technique has been studied very recently by Srivastava and Lashin [10] (see also [11]) .

Let the function (a, c; z) be given by

( )
( )
( )
( ) A e = =
+

z c z
c
a
z c a
n
n n
n
,...; 2 , 1 , 0 ; ,
1
0
,
where ( )
n
x

is the Pochhammer symbol defined by
( )
( )( ) ( ) { }

= e + + +
=
=
. ,... 3 , 2 , 1 , 1 .... 2 1
; 0 , 1
N n n x x x x
n
x
n

Corresponding to the function ( ), ; , z c a Carlson and Shaffer [4] introduced a linear operator
L(a, c), which is defined by the following Hadamard product (or convolution):
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( )
( )
. ; , ,
1
0
+

= - =
n
n
n
n
n
z a
c
a
z f z c a z f c a L
We note that
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ), 1 , 1 , 1 , 2 , , z f D z f L z f z z f L z f z f a a L
o
o = + ' = =

where ( ) z f D
o
is the Ruscheweyh derivative of ( ) z f .

The main object of the present sequel to the aforementioned works is to apply a method based on
the differential subordination in order to derive several subordination results involv- ing the CarlsonShaffer
Operator. Furthermore, we obtain the previous results of Srivastava
and Lashin [10] and Obradovic and Owa [8] as special cases of some of the results presented here.

( )
( )
( ) { }
( ) ,
2 2
2
1
z q
z f
z f z
z q
'


II. PRELIMINARIES
In order to prove our subordination and superordination results, we make use of the following known results.
Definition 2.1 [7 Definition 2, p. 817] Denote by Q the set of all functions ( ) z f that are analytic and
injective on ( ) f E A , where
( ) ( )
)
`

= A c e =
,
,
z
z f f E lim : ,
and are such that ( ) 0 = ' , f for ( ) f E A c e , .

Theorem 2.2[6,Theorem 3.4h , p.132] Let the function q be univalent in the open unit disk Aand u and | be
analytic in a domain Dcontaining ( ) A q with ( ) 0 = e | when ( ) A eq e . Set ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) z q z q z z Q | ' = ,
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) z Q z q z h + =u . Suppose that
(1)

( ) z Q is starlike univalent in A, and
On sandwich results for some subclasses of analytic functions involving certain linear operator
www.iosrjen.org 35 | P a g e
(2) ( ) ( ) ( ) 0 / Re > ' z Q z h z for ( ) A e z .
If
( ) { } ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) { } ( ) ( ) ( ) z q z q z z q z p z p z z p | u | u ' + ' + ,
then ( ) ( ) z q z p and qis best dominant.

Lemma 2.3 [10] Let g be a convex function in A and let
( ) ( ) ( ) , z g z m z g z h ' + = o
where 0 > o and m is a positive integer.
If ( ) ( ) .... 0 + + =
m
m
z p g z p is analytic in A and
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) , , A e ' + z z h z p z z p o

then
( ) ( ) z g z p , ( ) A e z
and this result is sharp.

Lemma 2.4 [9, Lemma 1, p,71] Let h be a convex function with ( ) a h = 0 and let C e with ( ) 0 Re > .
If H pe with ( ) a p = 0 and
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ), ,
1
A e ' + z z h z p z z p

then
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) A e z z h z q z p
where
( )
( )
( )
( )
( ) . ,
0
/
/
1
A e =
}

z dt t t h
nz
z q
z
n
n

The function qis convex and is the best dominant .

Theorem 2.5 [2] Let the function q be convex univalent in the open unit disk Aand0 and be analytic in a
domain

Dcontaining ( ) A q . Suppose that
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) | | 0 / Re 1 > ' z q z q 0 for ( ) A e z ,
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) z q z q z ' 2 is starlike univalent in A.
If ( ) | | Q q H p e 1 , 0 , with ( ) , D p _ A and ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) z p z p z z p 0 ' + is univalent in A, and
( ) { } ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) { } ( ) ( ) ( ) z p z p z z p z q z q z z q 0 0 ' + ' + , (2)
then ( ) ( ) z p z q and q is the best subordinant .

III. SUBORDINATION AND SUPERORDINATION FOR ANALYTIC FUNCTIONS
We begin by proving involving differential subordination between analytic functions .
Lemma3.1 If ( ) A e z f , then

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) , , 1 , 1 , z f c a L a z f c a L a z f c a L z + =
'

where ,... 2 , 1 , 0 = c
proof Note that
( ) ( )
( )
( )
, ,
1
0
+

=
n
n
n
n
n
z a
c
a
z f c a L
and
( ) ( )
( )
( )
.
1
, 1
1
0
+

+
= +
n
n
n
n
n
z a
c
a
z f c a L
These give that
On sandwich results for some subclasses of analytic functions involving certain linear operator
www.iosrjen.org 36 | P a g e
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
'
=
+ =
+ =
+
+

=
+

=
+

z f c a L z
z a
c
a
n
z a
c
a
a z a
c
a
n a
z f c a L a z f c a L a
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
,
1
1
, 1 , 1
1
0
1
0
1
0

this proves lemma 3.1 .

Theorem 3.2 Let the function ( ) z q
be analytic and univalent in
A such that ( ) 0 = z q .
Suppose that
( ) ( ) z q z q z / '
is starlike univalent in A. Let
( ) ( ) ( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( ) 0 ; , , , ; 0
2
1 Re
2
= e A e >
)
`

'
' '
+
'
+ + | | o o
|
o
|

C z
z q
z q z
z q
z q z
z q z q
(3)
and
( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )

+
+
+ +
(

+
+
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|
+
=
z f c a L
z f c a L
a
z f c a L
z f c a L
a
z f c a L
z
z
z f c a L
z f c a L
z
z
z f c a L
f c a
, 1
, 2
1 1
1
,
, 1
, 1
,
, 1
,
, , , , , , ,
2
2
|q
|
o
o
q o |
q

(4)

If q satisfies the following subordination :

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( )
( )
( ) , 0 ; 0 ; , , , , , ;
, , , , , , ,
2
= = e A e
'
+ + +
| q | o o
| o o q o |
C z
z q
z q z
z q z q f c a
(5)

then

( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) 0 ; , ; 0 ;
, 1
,
= e = A e
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|
q
q

C z z z q
z f c a L
z
z
z f c a L
(6)
and q is the best dominant .
Proof Let the function ( ) z p be defined by

( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
q

|
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|
=
z f c a L
z
z
z f c a L
z p
, 1
,
(7)
so that, by a straightforward computation , we have

( )
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
.
, 1
, 1
1 1
,
,
(
(

+
'
+
+
(
(

'
=
'
z f c a L
z f c a L z
z f c a L
z f c a L z
z p
z p z
q (8)
By using lemma3.1we deduce that
On sandwich results for some subclasses of analytic functions involving certain linear operator
www.iosrjen.org 37 | P a g e

( )
( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
.
, 1
, 2 1
1
,
, 1
(

+
+ +
+ +
(

+
=
'
z f c a L
z f c a L a
a a
z f c a L
z f c a L a
z p
z p z
q

By setting
( )
2
oe e o e u + + = and ( ) ,
e
|
e | =
it can be easily observed that ( ) e u is analytic in C , ( ) e | is analytic in

{ } 0 \ C

and
that ( ) { } ( ) 0 \ 0 C e = e e |
.
Also, by letting

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( )
( ) z q
z q z
z q z q z z Q
'
= ' = | |
(9)
and


( ) ( ) { } ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( )
( )
,
2
z q
z q z
z q z q z Q z q z h
'
+ + + = + = | o o u
(10)

we find that ( ) z Q is starlike univalent in A and that
( )
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( ) . 0 ; , , , ;
0
2
1 Re Re
2
= e A e
>
)
`

'
' '
+
'
+ + =
|
|
.
|

\
| '
| | o o
|
o
|

C z
z q
z q z
z q
z q z
z q z q
z Q
z h z

The assertion (6) of Theorem 3.2 now follows by an application of Theorem 2.2.


For the choices ( ) 1 1 , 1 / 1 s < s + + = A B Bz Az z q and
( ) { } , 1 0 , 1 / 1 s < + =

z z z q in Theorem 3.2, we get the following results (Corollaries 3.3 and

3.4 ).
Corollary 3.3 Assume that (3) holds. If A f e , and
( )
( )
( )( )
( ), 0 ; 0 ; , , , , , ;
1 1 1
1
1
1
, , , , , , ,
2
= = e A e
+ +

+
|
.
|

\
|
+
+
+
+
+
+
| q | o o
|
o o q o |
C z
Bz Az
z B A
Bz
Az
Bz
Az
f c a

where ( ) f c a , , , , , , , q o | is as defined in (4),
then
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) 0 ; , ; 0 ;
1
1
, 1
,
= e = A e
+
+
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|
q
q

C z z
Bz
Az
z f c a L
z
z
z f c a L

and Bz Az + + 1 / 1 is the best dominant.
Corollary3. 4 Assume that (3) holds. If A f e , and
( )
( )
( ) 0 ; 0 ; , , , , , ;
1
2
1
1
1
1
, , , , , , ,
2
2
= = e A e

+
|
.
|

\
|

+
+
|
.
|

\
|

+
+
| q | o o
|
o o q o |

C z
z
z
z
z
z
z
f c a

where ( ) f c a , , , , , , , q o | is as defined in (4),
then
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) 0 ; , ; 0 ;
1
1
, 1
,
= e = A e
)
`

+
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|
q

C z z
z
z
z f c a L
z
z
z f c a L

On sandwich results for some subclasses of analytic functions involving certain linear operator
www.iosrjen.org 38 | P a g e
and { }

z z + 1 / 1 is the best dominant.

For a special case ( )
Az
e z q

= , with t < A , Theorem 3.2 readily yields the following.
Corollary3. 5 Assume that (3) holds. If A f e , and



( )
( ) 0 ; 0 ; , , , , , ;
, , , , , , ,
2
= = e A e
+ + +
| q | o o
| o o q o |

C z
z A e e f c a
Az Az

where ( ) f c a , , , , , , , q o | is as defined in (4), then
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) 0 ; , ; 0 ;
, 1
,
= e = A e
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|
q

C z z e
z f c a L
z
z
z f c a L
Az

and
Az
e

is the best dominant .

Remark 3.6 Taking | o q o / 1 , 1 , 0 , 1 = = = = = = = c a in corollary 3.5, we get the

result obtained by Obradovic and Owa [8].
For a special case
when ( ) ( ) { } ( ) , / 1 1 , 1 , 0 , 1 , 0 \ 1 / 1
2
b and c a C b z z q
b
= = = = = = = = = e = | o o q o

Theorem 3.2 reduces at once to the following known result obtained by Srivastava and Lashin [10].
Corollary3. 7 Let be a non-zero complex number. If A f e , and
( )
( )
,
1
1
1
1
1
z
z
z f
z f z
b
+
(

'
+

then
( )
( )
b
z
z
z f
2
1
1

and ( )
b
z
2
1 / 1 is the best dominant .
For ( ) ( )
( )
| o q o

/ 1 , 1 , 0 , 1 , 1
/
= = = = = = = + =

c a Bz z q
B B A
in Theorem 3.2, we get the
following known result obtained by Obradovic and Owa [8].
Corollary 3.8 Let . 1 1 s < s A B Let B A, , satisfy the relation either

( ) 1 1 / s B B A or ( ) 1 1 / s + B B A . If A f e , and

( )
( )
,
1
1
Bz
Az
z f
z f z
+
+ '

then

( )
( )
( ) B B A
Bz
z
z f
/
1

+
|
.
|

\
|

( ) 0 ; ; 0 ; = e = A e C z z

and ( )
( ) B B A
Bz
/
1

+

is the best dominant.
With the help of Lemma 2.4, we now prove the following theorem .

Theorem 3.9 Let ( ) ( ) 0 0 , 1 0 , = ' = e h h H h which satisfy the inequality

( )
( )
,
2
1
1 Re >
(

'
' '
+
z h
z h z

( ) . A e z










If
m
A f e satisfies the differential subordination
On sandwich results for some subclasses of analytic functions involving certain linear operator
www.iosrjen.org 39 | P a g e

( ) ( )
( ) ,
,
z h
z
z f c k a L

+
( ) , 0 ; , = A e e
+
z z Z k (11)
then


( ) ( )
( ) ,
, 1
z g
z
z f c k a L

+

( ) , 0 ; , = A e e
+
z z Z k (12)
where
( )
( )
( ) ( )
( )
( ) ( )
( ) . , ,
1
0
/ 1
/ 1
1
A e e
+
=
+ +
+ }

z Z k dt t t h
mz
k a
z g
z
m k a
m k a
(13)
The function g is convex and is the best dominant .
Proof Let the function ( ) z p be defined by

( )
( ) ( )
z
z f c k a L
z p
, 1 +
= ( ) . 0 ; , = A e e
+
z z Z k (14)
A straightforward computation gives

( )
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
. 1
, 1
, 1
(
(

+
'
+
=
'
z f c k a L
z f c k a L z
z p
z p z
(15)
By using lemma3.1we deduce that
( )
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( )
(

+
+
+ +
=
'
1
, 1
, 1
k a
z f c k a L
z f c k a L k a
z p
z p z

and hence
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
z
z f c k a L
k a
z p z
z p
,
1
+
=
+
'
+ ( ) . , A e e
+
z Z k (16)
The assertion of Theorem 3.9 now follows from Lemma 2.4.
For the choice of k=1, we get


Theorem 3.10 If
m
A f e satisfies the differential subordination


( ) ( )
( ) ,
, 1
z h
z
z f c a L

+
( ) , 0 ; = A e z z (17)
then

( ) ( )
( ) ,
,
z g
z
z f c a L

( ) , 0 ; = A e z z (18)
where
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( ) . ,
1
0
/
/
1
A e
+
=
}

z dt t t h
mz
a
z g
z
m a
m a
(19)
The function g is convex and is the best dominant .

Proof Let the function ( ) z p be defined by

( )
( ) ( )
z
z f c a L
z p
,
=

( ) , 0 ; = A e z z (20)
so that, by a straightforward computation , we have

( )
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
. 1
,
,
(
(

'
=
'
z f c a L
z f c a L z
z p
z p z
(21)
By using lemma3.1we deduce that
On sandwich results for some subclasses of analytic functions involving certain linear operator
www.iosrjen.org 40 | P a g e

( )
( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
(

+
=
'
a
z f c a L
z f c a L a
z p
z p z
,
, 1

and hence
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
z
z f c a L
a
z p z
z p
, 1 +
=
'
+ ( ) . A e z (22)
The assertion of Theorem 3.10 now follows from Lemma 2.4.

Next, by using Lemma 2.3, we prove the following theorem .

Theorem 3.11 Let g be a convex function with ( ) . 1 0 = g Let h be a function , such that
( ) ( ) ( ) .
1
z g z
m
z g z h '
+
+ =

If
m
A f e satisfies the differential subordination
( ) ( )
( ),
,
z h
z
z f c k a L

+
( ) , 0 ; , = A e e
+
z z Z k (23)
then
( ) ( )
( ) ,
, 1
z g
z
z f c k a L

+
( ) , 0 ; , = A e e
+
z z Z k

(24)
and this result is sharp.
Proof The proof of the theorem is much akin to the proof of Theorem 3.12 and hence we omit the details
involved.
Next, by appealing to Theorem 2.5 of the preceding section, we prove Theorem 3.12.

Theorem 3.12 1 Let ( ) z q be analytic and convex univalent in A such that ( ) 0 = z q and ( ) ( ) z q z q z / '

be starlike univalent in A. Further, let us assume that
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 0 ; , , ; , 0
2
Re
2
= e A e >
)
`

+ | | o
|

|
o
C z z q z q (25)




If A f e ,
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) | | Q q H
z f c a L
z
z
z f c a L
e
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|
= 1 , 0
, 1
,
0
q

, and
( ) f c a , , , , , , , q o | is univalent in A, then

( ) ( ) ( )
( )
( )
( )
( ), 0 ; 0 ; , , , , , ;
, , , , , , ,
2
= = e A e
'
+ + +
| q | o o
q o | | o o
C z
f c a
z q
z q z
z q z q

implies
( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) | | Q q H
z f c a L
z
z
z f c a L
z q e
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|
1 , 0
, 1
,
q

(26)
and q is the best subordinant where ( ) f c a , , , , , , , q o | is as defined in (4).
Proof By setting
( )
2
oe e o e 0 + + = and ( ) ,
e
e
e
'
=
it is easily observed that ( ) e 0

is analytic in C . Also, ( ) e

is analytic in { } 0 \ C and that
( ) , 0 = e { } ( ) . 0 \ C e e
On sandwich results for some subclasses of analytic functions involving certain linear operator
www.iosrjen.org 41 | P a g e
Since q is convex (univalent ) function it follows that ,


( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 0 ; , , ; , 0
2
Re Re
2
= e A e >
)
`

+ =
(

'
| | o
|

|
o

0
C z z q z q
z q
z q
.
The assertion (26) of Theorem 3.12 follows by an application of Theorem 2.5.
We remark here that Theorem 3.12 can easily be restated , for different choice of the function ( ) z q . Combining
Theorem 3.2 and Theorem 3.12, we get the following sandwich theorem .

Theorem 3.13 Let ( ) z q
1
be convex univalent and ( ) z q
2
be univalent in A such that ( ) 0
1
= z q and
( ) 0
2
= z q . Suppose f satisfies (25)and (3) .
If A f e ,
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) | | Q q H
z f c a L
z
z
z f c a L
e
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|
= 1 , 0
, 1
,
0
q

,
and that ( ) f c a , , , , , , , q o | is univalent in A, where ( ) f c a , , , , , , , q o | is given by (4)
then
( ) ( ) ( )
( )
( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( )
( )
( ), 0 ; 0 ; , , , , , ;
, , , , , , ,
2
2
2
2 2
1
1
2
1 1
= = e A e
'
+ + +
'
+ + +
| q | o o |
o o q o | | o o
C z
z q
z q z
z q z q f c a
z q
z q z
z q z q
implies
( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) 0 ; , ; 0 ;
, 1
,
2 1
= e = A e
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|
q
q

C z z z q
z f c a L
z
z
z f c a L
z q
and
1
q and
2
q are respectively the best subordinant and best dominant.

REFERENCES
[1] R.M. Ali, V. Ravichandran, M. Hussain Khan, and K.G. Subramanian, Differential sandwich theorems for certain analytic functions,
Far East J. Math. Sci. 15(1) (2005), pp. 8794.
[2] T. Bulboaca, Classes of first-order differential superordinations, Demonstratio Math. 35(2) (2002), pp. 287292.
[3] T. Bulboaca , A class of superordination-preserving integral operators, Indag. Math. (N. S.) 13(3) (2002),pp. 301311.
[4] B.C. Carlson and D.B. Shaffer, Starlike and prestarlike hypergeometric functions, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 15 (1984), pp. 737745.
[5] S.S. Miller and P.T. Mocanu, On some classes of first order differential subordinations, Mi-chigan Math. J. 32 (1985), pp. 185195.
[6] S.S. Miller and P.T. Mocanu, Differential subordinations: theory and applications, in Pure and Applied Mathematics No. 225, Marcel
Dekker, New York, 2000.
[7] S.S. Miller and P.T. Mocanu, Subordinants of differential superordinations, Complex Var. 48(10) (2003), pp. 815826.
[8] M. Obradovicc and S. Owa, On certain properties for some classes of starlike functions, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 145(2) (1990), pp. 357
364.
[9] T.N. Shanmugam, V. Ravichandran, and S. Sivasubramanian, Differential sandwich theo- rems for some subclasses of analytic
functions, Aust. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 3(1) (2006), Article 8, 11
[10] H.M. Srivastava and A.Y. Lashin, Some applications of the Briot-Bouquet differential subordination, JIPAM. J. Inequal. Pure
Appl. Math. 6(2) (2005), Article 41, 7.
[11] N. Tuneski, On certain sufficient conditions for starlikeness, Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 23(8) (2000), pp. 521527.