Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16239901›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Immunology2005

Immunization without needles.

Samir Mitragotri

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Immunology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 119 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
119citing 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

119 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Comparative Safety and Efficacy of Commercial Porcine Vaccines AgainstAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Microneedle-Mediated Immunization Promotes Lung CD8+ T-Cell Immunity.The Journal of investigative dermatology · 2023
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Cleanroom-Free Fabrication of Microneedles for Multimodal Drug Delivery.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Advanced Biomaterials for Cell-Specific Modulation and Restore of Cancer Immunotherapy.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2022
    Review
  20. Review

59 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.

Samir MitragotriDepartment of Chemical Engineering, University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106, USA. samir@engineering.ucsb.edu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most current immunization procedures make use of needles and syringes for vaccine administration. With the increase in the number of immunizations that children around the world routinely receive, health organizations are beginning to look for safer alternatives that reduce the risk of cross-contamination that arises from needle reuse. This article focuses on contemporary developments in needle-free methods of immunization, such as liquid-jet injectors, topical application to the skin, oral pills and nasal sprays.

Indexed as

Administration, OralAdultChildEquipment ContaminationHumansImmunizationInjectionsNeedlesVaccinesVaccines

Identifiers

PMID16239901

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.