ArticleThe Analyst2016
Quantitative analysis of iontophoretic drug delivery from micropipettes.
Article in The Analyst, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Glutamate Receptor Activation on Local Oxygen Changes.ACS chemical neuroscience · 2017Article
- Expanding neurochemical investigations with multi-modal recording: simultaneous fast-scan cyclic voltammetry, iontophoresis, and patch clamp measurements.The Analyst · 2016Article
- Evaluation of Drug Concentrations Delivered by Microiontophoresis.Analytical chemistry · 2016Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Microiontophoresis is a drug delivery method in which an electric current is used to eject molecular species from a micropipette. It has been primarily utilized for neurochemical investigations, but is limited due to difficulty controlling and determining the ejected quantity. Consequently the concentration of an ejected species and the extent of the affected region are relegated to various methods of approximation. To address this, we investigated the principles underlying ejection rates and examined the concentration distribution in microiontophoresis using a combination of electrochemical, chromatographic, and fluorescence-based approaches. This involved a principal focus on how the iontophoretic barrel solution affects ejection characteristics. The ion ejection rate displayed a direct correspondence to the ionic mole fraction, regardless of the ejection current polarity. In contrast, neutral molecules are ejected by electroosmotic flow (EOF) at a rate proportional to the barrel solution concentration. Furthermore, the presence of EOF was observed from barrels containing high ionic strength solutions. In practice, use of a retaining current draws extracellular ions into the barrel and will alter the barrel solution composition. Even in the absence of a retaining current, diffusional exchange at the barrel tip will occur. Thus behavior of successive ejections may slightly differ. To account for this, electrochemical or fluorescence markers can be incorporated into the barrel solution in order to compare ejection quantities. These may also be used to provide an estimate of the ejected amount and distribution provided accurate use of calibration procedures.
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.