Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25996118›Full record

ArticleNanomedicine (London, England)2015

Comparison of nanoparticle penetration into solid tumors and sites of inflammation: studies using targeted and nontargeted liposomes.

Scott Poh, Venkatesh Chelvam, Philip S Low

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Nanomedicine (London, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Comparative efficacy, toxicity and biodistribution of the liposomal amphotericin B formulations FungisomeInternational journal for parasitology. Drugs and drug resistance · 2018
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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 1 institution in 2 countries.

Scott Poh1Department of Chemistry, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA.
Venkatesh Chelvam1Department of Chemistry, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA.
Philip S Low1Department of Chemistry, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA.
Purdue University West Lafayette · US

Funding

Transgenic Mouse Core Facility Shared Resource (TMCF-SR)P30CA023168 · NCI · PURDUE UNIVERSITY WEST LAFAYETTE · PI John Tesmer · 1985 to 2026
$43.4M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe vast majority of nanomedicine research is focused on the use of nanoparticles for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. However, the dense extracellular matrix of solid tumors restricts nanoparticle penetration, raising the question of whether the best applications of nanomedicines lie in oncology. MATERIALS &

methodsIn this study, the uptake of folate-conjugated liposomes was compared between folate receptor-expressing tumors and folate receptor+ inflammatory lesions within the same mouse.

resultsWe demonstrate here that both folate-targeted and nontargeted liposomes accumulate more readily at sites of inflammation than in solid tumors.

conclusionThese data suggest that nanosized imaging and therapeutic agents may be better suited for the treatment and diagnosis of inflammatory/autoimmune diseases than cancer.

Indexed as

Drug Delivery SystemsLiposomesAnimalsColitis, UlcerativeFolic AcidMiceMice, Inbred BALB CMice, Inbred DBANanoparticlesNeoplasmsTissue DistributionFolic AcidLiposomescancerfolateinflammationliposomenanomedicinenanoparticle

Identifiers

PMID25996118
PMCPMC4910969
OpenAlexW2174774056

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.