Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22622286›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of membrane biology2012

In vivo muscle electroporation threshold determination: realistic numerical models and in vivo experiments.

Selma Čorović, Lluis M Mir, Damijan Miklavčič

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of membrane biology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. An ultra-low-cost electroporator with microneedle electrodes (ePatch) for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Electroporation in food processing and biorefinery.The Journal of membrane biology · 2014
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Selma ČorovićUniversity of Ljubljana, Trzaska 25, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. selma.corovic@fe.uni-lj.si
Lluis M Mir
Damijan Miklavčič
Laboratoire de Vectorologie et Thérapeutiques Anticancéreuses · FRUniversity of Ljubljana · SI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In vivo electroporation is used as an effective technique for delivery of therapeutic agents such as chemotherapeutic drugs or DNA into target tissue cells for different biomedical purposes. In order to successfully electroporate a target tissue, it is essential to know the local electric field distribution produced by an application of electroporation voltage pulses. In this study three-dimensional finite element models were built in order to analyze local electric field distribution and corresponding tissue conductivity changes in rat muscle electroporated either transcutaneously or directly (i.e., two-plate electrodes were placed either on the skin or directly on the skeletal muscle after removing the skin). Numerical calculations of electroporation thresholds and conductivity changes in skin and muscle were validated with in vivo measurements. Our model of muscle with skin also confirms the in vivo findings of previous studies that electroporation "breaks" the skin barrier when the applied voltage is above 50 V.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsModels, BiologicalAbsorptionAnimalsChromium RadioisotopesEdetic AcidElectric ConductivityElectroporationFemaleMuscle, SkeletalRatsRats, WistarSkin Physiological PhenomenaChromium RadioisotopesEdetic Acid

Identifiers

PMID22622286
OpenAlexW2129132875

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.