ReviewInternational journal of nanomedicine2014
Closing the gap: accelerating the translational process in nanomedicine by proposing standardized characterization techniques.
Review in International journal of nanomedicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety, Distribution, and Pharmacokinetics of Biodegradable P(AAm-co-MAA) Nanogels Following Systemic Administration in Mice.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A · 2026Article
- Process Control of Multistep Surface Functionalization on Hydroxyethyl Starch Nanocapsules Determines the Reproducibility of the Biological Efficacy.Biomacromolecules · 2024Article
- Vaginal Nanoformulations for the Management of Preterm Birth.Pharmaceutics · 2022Review
- Designing Functional Bionanoconstructs for EffectiveBioconjugate chemistry · 2022Review
- Novel Methods and Approaches for Safety Evaluation of Nanoparticle Formulations: A Focus TowardsFrontiers in pharmacology · 2021Review
- Identification of physicochemical properties that modulate nanoparticle aggregation in blood.Beilstein journal of nanotechnology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
On the cusp of widespread permeation of nanomedicine, academia, industry, and government have invested substantial financial resources in developing new ways to better treat diseases. Materials have unique physical and chemical properties at the nanoscale compared with their bulk or small-molecule analogs. These unique properties have been greatly advantageous in providing innovative solutions for medical treatments at the bench level. However, nanomedicine research has not yet fully permeated the clinical setting because of several limitations. Among these limitations are the lack of universal standards for characterizing nanomaterials and the limited knowledge that we possess regarding the interactions between nanomaterials and biological entities such as proteins. In this review, we report on recent developments in the characterization of nanomaterials as well as the newest information about the interactions between nanomaterials and proteins in the human body. We propose a standard set of techniques for universal characterization of nanomaterials. We also address relevant regulatory issues involved in the translational process for the development of drug molecules and drug delivery systems. Adherence and refinement of a universal standard in nanomaterial characterization as well as the acquisition of a deeper understanding of nanomaterials and proteins will likely accelerate the use of nanomedicine in common practice to a great extent.
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.