ReviewPharmaceutical research2012
Imaging of cells and nanoparticles: implications for drug delivery to the brain.
Review in Pharmaceutical research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nanoparticle Detection in Biology and Medicine: A Review.Biosensors · 2025Review
- Visualization of Nanocarriers and Drugs in Cells and Tissue.Handbook of experimental pharmacology · 2024Article
- Fluorescent Dye Labeling Changes the Biodistribution of Tumor-Targeted Nanoparticles.Pharmaceutics · 2020Article
- Inhibition by Multifunctional Magnetic Nanoparticles Loaded with Alpha-Synuclein RNAi Plasmid in a Parkinson's Disease Model.Theranostics · 2017Article
- Drug delivery in overcoming the blood-brain barrier: role of nasal mucosal grafting.Drug design, development and therapy · 2017Review
- Overview about the localization of nanoparticles in tissue and cellular context by different imaging techniques.Beilstein journal of nanotechnology · 2015Review
- Bionanotechnology and the future of glioma.Surgical neurology international · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A major challenge in the development of central nervous system drugs is to obtain therapeutic effective drug concentrations inside the brain. Many potentially effective drugs have never reached clinical application because of poor brain penetration. Currently, devices are being developed that may improve drug delivery into the brain. One approach involves the encapsulation of drugs into nanocarriers that are targeted to the brain, where the drug is released. Alternatively, living cells have been engineered to produce the pharmaceutical of interest at the target site. It is important to follow the fate of these drug delivery devices inside the body to verify their efficiency in reaching the brain. To this end, both ex-vivo approaches and in-vivo imaging techniques are used, including ex-vivo biodistribution, autoradiography, MRI, optical imaging, PET and SPECT. All these methods have their specific advantages and limitations. Consequently, selection of the tracking method should be based on the specific aims of the experiment. Here, we will discuss the methods that are currently applied for tracking brain drug delivery devices, including the most commonly used labels and labeling procedures for living cells and nanocarriers. Subsequently, we will discuss specific applications in tracking drug delivery devices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22806407What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.