Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15295618›Full record

ReviewGene therapy2004

Gene therapy progress and prospects: electroporation and other physical methods.

D J Wells

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Gene therapy, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 99 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
99citing 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

99 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Preparation of Polymeric Nanoparticles for Gene Delivery.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2027
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Gene Therapy in the Anterior Eye Segment.Current gene therapy · 2022
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  20. Review

39 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

1 author.

D J WellsGene Targeting Unit, Department of Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience, Division of Neuroscience and Psychological Medicine, Imperial College London, Charing Cross Hospital, St Dunstan's Road, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the last 5 years, physical methods of plasmid delivery have revolutionized the efficiency of nonviral gene transfer, in some cases reaching the efficiencies of viral vectors. In vivo electroporation dramatically increases transfection efficiency for a variety of tissues. Other methods with clinical precedent, pressure-perfusion and ultrasound, also improve plasmid gene transfer. Alternatives such as focused laser, magnetic fields and ballistic (gene gun) approaches can also enhance delivery. As plasmid DNA appears to be a safe gene vector system, it seems likely that plasmid with physically enhanced delivery will be used increasingly in clinical trials.

Indexed as

Genetic TherapyGenetic VectorsGene Transfer TechniquesHumansPlasmids

Identifiers

PMID15295618

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.