Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18654343›Full record

ReviewNature nanotechnology2007

Immunological properties of engineered nanomaterials.

Marina A Dobrovolskaia, Scott E McNeil

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature nanotechnology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 532 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
532citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

532 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Green-synthesized Nanoparticles as Emerging Antidepressant and Anxiolytic Candidates: A Critical Review of Preclinical Evidence and Translational Prospects.Journal of neuroimmune pharmacology : the official journal of the Society on NeuroImmune Pharmacology · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

472 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

2 authors.

Marina A DobrovolskaiaNanotechnology Characterization Laboratory, Advanced Technology Program, SAIC-Frederick, NCI-Frederick, 1050 Boyles St, Bldg 469, Frederick, Maryland 21702, USA. marina@mail.nih.gov
Scott E McNeil

Funding

NCI NIH HHS N01-CO-12400
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most research on the toxicology of nanomaterials has focused on the effects of nanoparticles that enter the body accidentally. There has been much less research on the toxicology of nanoparticles that are used for biomedical applications, such as drug delivery or imaging, in which the nanoparticles are deliberately placed in the body. Moreover, there are no harmonized standards for assessing the toxicity of nanoparticles to the immune system (immunotoxicity). Here we review recent research on immunotoxicity, along with data on a range of nanotechnology-based drugs that are at different stages in the approval process. Research shows that nanoparticles can stimulate and/or suppress the immune responses, and that their compatibility with the immune system is largely determined by their surface chemistry. Modifying these factors can significantly reduce the immunotoxicity of nanoparticles and make them useful platforms for drug delivery.

Indexed as

AnimalsDrug Delivery SystemsHumansImmunotoxinsNanostructuresImmunotoxins

Identifiers

PMID18654343

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.