Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20924653›Full record

ReviewPharmaceutical research2011

In vivo methods to study uptake of nanoparticles into the brain.

Inge van Rooy, Serpil Cakir-Tascioglu, Wim E Hennink, Gert Storm, Raymond M Schiffelers, Enrico Mastrobattista

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pharmaceutical research, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing 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

45 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Hypothalamic wars: the last nanodelivery.Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Ibrain · 2023
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Nanotherapeutics and the Brain.Annual review of chemical and biomolecular engineering · 2022
    Review
  19. AnBio-protocol · 2022
    Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors.

Inge van RooyDepartment of Pharmaceutics Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, PO Box 80082, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands. i.vanrooy@uu.nl
Serpil Cakir-Tascioglu
Wim E Hennink
Gert Storm
Raymond M Schiffelers
Enrico Mastrobattista

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several in vivo techniques have been developed to study and measure the uptake of CNS compounds into the brain. With these techniques, various parameters can be determined after drug administration, including the blood-to-brain influx constant (K(in)), the permeability-surface area (PS) product, and the brain uptake index (BUI). These techniques have been mostly used for drugs that are expected to enter the brain via transmembrane diffusion or by carrier-mediated transcytosis. Drugs that have limitations in entering the brain via such pathways have been encapsulated in nanoparticles (based on lipids or synthetic polymers) to enhance brain uptake. Nanoparticles are different from CNS compounds in size, composition and uptake mechanisms. This has led to different methods and approaches to study brain uptake in vivo. Here we discuss the techniques generally used to measure nanoparticle uptake in addition to the techniques used for CNS compounds. Techniques include visualization methods, behavioral tests, and quantitative methods.

Indexed as

NanoparticlesAnimalsBiological TransportBlood-Brain BarrierBrainHumans

Identifiers

PMID20924653
PMCPMC3044085

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.