Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20519209›Full record

ReviewJournal of the Royal Society, Interface2010

A review of nanoparticle functionality and toxicity on the central nervous system.

Z Yang, Z W Liu, R P Allaker, P Reip, J Oxford, Z Ahmad, G Ren

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Specific Focus on Antifungal Peptides against Azole ResistantJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

4 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

7 authors.

Z YangSchool of Medical Science, Nankai University, Tianjin, China.
Z W Liu
R P Allaker
P Reip
J Oxford
Z Ahmad
G Ren

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although nanoparticles have tremendous potential for a host of applications, their adverse effects on living cells have raised serious concerns recently for their use in the healthcare and consumer sectors. As regards the central nervous system (CNS), research data on nanoparticle interaction with neurons has provided evidence of both negative and positive effects. Maximal application dosage of nanoparticles in materials to provide applications such as antibacterial and antiviral functions is approximately 0.1-1.0 wt%. This concentration can be converted into a liquid phase release rate (leaching rate) depending upon the host or base materials used. For example, nanoparticulate silver (Ag) or copper oxide (CuO)-filled epoxy resin demonstrates much reduced release of the metal ions (Ag(+) or Cu(2+)) into their surrounding environment unless they are mechanically removed or aggravated. Subsequent to leaching effects and entry into living systems, nanoparticles can also cross through many other barriers, such as skin and the blood-brain barrier (BBB), and may also reach bodily organs. In such cases, their concentration or dosage in body fluids is considered to be well below the maximum drug toxicity test limit (10(-5) g ml(-1)) as determined in artificial cerebrospinal solution. As this is a rapidly evolving area and the use of such materials will continue to mature, so will their exposure to members of society. Hence, neurologists have equal interests in nanoparticle effects (positive functionality and negative toxicity) on human neuronal cells within the CNS, where the current research in this field will be highlighted and reviewed.

Indexed as

AnimalsBlood-Brain BarrierCell LineCentral Nervous SystemCopperForecastingHumansNanoparticlesSilverToxicity TestsCoppercuprous oxideSilver

Identifiers

PMID20519209
PMCPMC2943893

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.