Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23111168›Full record

ReviewHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2012

What you always needed to know about electroporation based DNA vaccines.

Anita Gothelf, Julie Gehl

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) vaccines structure, mechanisms and effectiveness: A review.International journal of biological macromolecules · 2021
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Measuring the potential energy barrier to lipid bilayer electroporation.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2017
    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

2 authors.

Anita GothelfCenter for Experimental Drug and Gene Electrotransfer (C*EDGE), Department of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev, Herlev, Denmark.
Julie Gehl

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vaccinations are increasingly used to fight infectious disease, and DNA vaccines offer considerable advantages, including broader possibilities for vaccination and lack of need for cold storage. It has been amply demonstrated, that electroporation augments uptake of DNA in both skin and muscle, and it is foreseen that future DNA vaccination may to a large extent be coupled with and dependent upon electroporation based delivery. Understanding the basic science of electroporation and exploiting knowledge obtained on optimization of DNA electrotransfer to muscle and skin, may greatly augment efforts on vaccine development. The purpose of this review is to give a succinct but comprehensive overview of electroporation as a delivery modality including electrotransfer to skin and muscle. As well, this review will speculate and discuss future uses for this powerful electrotransfer technology.

Indexed as

ElectroporationAnimalsHumansMusclesSkinVaccines, DNAVaccines, DNADNA vaccineelectroporationgene electrotransfergene therapygene transfectionmuscleskin

Identifiers

PMID23111168
PMCPMC3601144

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.