Evidence map›Paper›PMID 14531723›Full record

ReviewClinical pharmacokinetics2003

Absorption enhancers for nasal drug delivery.

Stanley S Davis, Lisbeth Illum

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

54 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Research progress on intranasal treatment for Parkinson's disease.Neuroprotection (Chichester, England) · 2024
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Preparation and Evaluation of theCurrent drug delivery · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Ion-activatedRecent advances in drug delivery and formulation · 2024
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Nasal vaccine as a booster shot: a viable solution to restrict pandemic?Clinical and experimental vaccine research · 2022
    Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Stanley S DavisInstitute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. stanley.davis@nottingham.ac.uk
Lisbeth Illum

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper describes the basic concepts for the transmucosal delivery of drugs, and in particular the use of the nasal route for delivery of challenging drugs such as polar low-molecular-weight drugs and peptides and proteins. Strategies for the exploitation of absorption enhancers for the improvement of nasal delivery are discussed, including consideration of mechanisms of action and the correlation between toxic effect and absorption enhancement. Selected enhancer systems, such as cyclodextrins, phospholipids, bioadhesive powder systems and chitosan, are discussed in detail. Examples of the use of these enhancers in preclinical and clinical studies are given. Methods for assessing irritancy and damage to the nasal membrane from the use of absorption enhancers are also described. Finally, the mucosal use of absorption enhancers (chitosan) for the improved nasal delivery of vaccines is reported with reference to recent phase I/II clinical studies.

Indexed as

AbsorptionAdjuvants, PharmaceuticAdministration, IntranasalAnimalsClinical Trials as TopicDrug DesignDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHumansPeptidesPharmaceutical PreparationsProteinsVaccinesAdjuvants, PharmaceuticPeptidesPharmaceutical PreparationsProteinsVaccines

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.