Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26022578›Full record

ReviewDrug delivery and translational research2015

Microneedle characterisation: the need for universal acceptance criteria and GMP specifications when moving towards commercialisation.

Rebecca E M Lutton, Jessica Moore, Eneko Larrañeta, Stephen Ligett, A David Woolfson, Ryan F Donnelly

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drug delivery and translational research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Rethinking asthma therapy, part 1: transdermal delivery of βJournal of pharmacy & pharmaceutical sciences : a publication of the Canadian Society for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Societe canadienne des sciences pharmaceutiques · 2026
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

6 authors.

Rebecca E M LuttonSchool of Pharmacy, Queens University Belfast, Medical Biology Centre, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast, BT9 7BL, UK.
Jessica Moore
Eneko Larrañeta
Stephen Ligett
A David Woolfson
Ryan F Donnelly

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/K020234/1Medical Research Council MC_PC_13075
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With interest in microneedles as a novel drug transdermal delivery system increasing rapidly since the late 1990s (Margetts and Sawyer Contin Educ Anaesthesia Crit Care Pain. 7(5):171-76, 2007), a diverse range of microneedle systems have been fabricated with varying designs and dimensions. However, there are still very few commercially available microneedle products. One major issue regarding microneedle manufacture on an industrial scale is the lack of specific quality standards for this novel dosage form in the context of Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP). A range of mechanical characterisation tests and microneedle insertion analysis techniques are used by researchers working on microneedle systems to assess the safety and performance profiles of their various designs. The lack of standardised tests and equipment used to demonstrate microneedle mechanical properties and insertion capability makes it difficult to directly compare the in use performance of candidate systems. This review highlights the mechanical tests and insertion analytical techniques used by various groups to characterise microneedles. This in turn exposes the urgent need for consistency across the range of microneedle systems in order to promote innovation and the successful commercialisation of microneedle products.

Indexed as

Technology TransferHumansInjections, IntradermalMicroinjectionsNeedlesTechnology, Pharmaceutical

Identifiers

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.