ReviewRadiology2014
Nanoparticles for imaging: top or flop?
Review in Radiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 66 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
66 citing papers in PubMed.
- Phase change nanodroplets: Challenges and clinical potential.Acta pharmaceutica Sinica. B · 2026Review
- Preclinical Evaluation of Stable Integrin αPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Advancements in Micro/Nanorobots in Medicine: Design, Actuation, and Transformative Application.ACS omega · 2025Review
- Biomedical Metal-Organic Framework Materials: Perspectives and Challenges.Advanced functional materials · 2024Article
- Supramolecular dye nanoassemblies for advanced diagnostics and therapies.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2024Review
- Current Overview of Metal Nanoparticles' Synthesis, Characterization, and Biomedical Applications, with a Focus on Silver and Gold Nanoparticles.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Nanocarriers for cancer nano-immunotherapy.Drug delivery and translational research · 2023Review
- [Research progress on the effect of iron oxide nanoparticles in macrophage polarization].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2023Article
- Functionalized Carbon Nanoparticles as Theranostic Agents and Their Future Clinical Utility in Oncology.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Enhancing Cellular Internalization of Single-Chain Polymer Nanoparticles via Polyplex Formation.Biomacromolecules · 2022Article
- Review
- Nanoparticles in the diagnosis and treatment of vascular aging and related diseases.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2022Review
- Bioimaging guided pharmaceutical evaluations of nanomedicines for clinical translations.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2022Review
- The Evolution of Molecular Recognition: From Antibodies to Molecularly Imprinted Polymers (MIPs) as Artificial Counterpart.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2022Review
- Self-assembled FGF21 nanoparticles alleviate drug-induced acute liver injury.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- Physically stimulus-responsive nanoparticles for therapy and diagnosis.Frontiers in chemistry · 2022Review
- Non-invasive molecular imaging of kidney diseases.Nature reviews. Nephrology · 2021Review
- Porous Nanomaterials Targeting Autophagy in Bone Regeneration.Pharmaceutics · 2021Review
- Integrin αCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2021Article
- A Perspective on Modelling Metallic Magnetic Nanoparticles in Biomedicine: From Monometals to Nanoalloys and Ligand-Protected Particles.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedResponse.2015
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Nanoparticles are frequently suggested as diagnostic agents. However, except for iron oxide nanoparticles, diagnostic nanoparticles have been barely incorporated into clinical use so far. This is predominantly due to difficulties in achieving acceptable pharmacokinetic properties and reproducible particle uniformity as well as to concerns about toxicity, biodegradation, and elimination. Reasonable indications for the clinical utilization of nanoparticles should consider their biologic behavior. For example, many nanoparticles are taken up by macrophages and accumulate in macrophage-rich tissues. Thus, they can be used to provide contrast in liver, spleen, lymph nodes, and inflammatory lesions (eg, atherosclerotic plaques). Furthermore, cells can be efficiently labeled with nanoparticles, enabling the localization of implanted (stem) cells and tissue-engineered grafts as well as in vivo migration studies of cells. The potential of using nanoparticles for molecular imaging is compromised because their pharmacokinetic properties are difficult to control. Ideal targets for nanoparticles are localized on the endothelial luminal surface, whereas targeted nanoparticle delivery to extravascular structures is often limited and difficult to separate from an underlying enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect. The majority of clinically used nanoparticle-based drug delivery systems are based on the EPR effect, and, for their more personalized use, imaging markers can be incorporated to monitor biodistribution, target site accumulation, drug release, and treatment efficacy. In conclusion, although nanoparticles are not always the right choice for molecular imaging (because smaller or larger molecules might provide more specific information), there are other diagnostic and theranostic applications for which nanoparticles hold substantial clinical potential.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.