Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26999191›Full record

ReviewPharmaceutics2016

Perspectives on Transdermal Electroporation.

Kevin Ita

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Pharmaceutics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Wearable patches for transdermal drug delivery.Acta pharmaceutica Sinica. B · 2023
    Review
  20. 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

1 author.

Kevin ItaCollege of Pharmacy, Touro University, Mare Island-Vallejo, CA 94592, USA. kevin.ita@tu.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transdermal drug delivery offers several advantages, including avoidance of erratic absorption, absence of gastric irritation, painlessness, noninvasiveness, as well as improvement in patient compliance. With this mode of drug administration, there is no pre-systemic metabolism and it is possible to increase drug bioavailability and half-life. However, only a few molecules can be delivered across the skin in therapeutic quantities. This is because of the hindrance provided by the stratum corneum. Several techniques have been developed and used over the last few decades for transdermal drug delivery enhancement. These include sonophoresis, iontophoresis, microneedles, and electroporation. Electroporation, which refers to the temporary perturbation of the skin following the application of high voltage electric pulses, has been used to increase transcutaneous flux values by several research groups. In this review, transdermal electroporation is discussed and the use of the technique for percutaneous transport of low and high molecular weight compounds described. This review also examines our current knowledge regarding the mechanisms of electroporation and safety concerns arising from the use of this transdermal drug delivery technique. Safety considerations are especially important because electroporation utilizes high voltage pulses which may have deleterious effects in some cases.

Indexed as

diffusiondrug deliveryelectroporationpulsetransdermal

Identifiers

PMID26999191
PMCPMC4810085

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.