ReviewDrug discovery today2017
Analysis of FDA-approved imaging agents.
Review in Drug discovery today, 2017. 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.
- A pan-cancer dye for solid-tumour screening, resection and wound monitoring via short-wave and near-infrared fluorescence imaging.Nature biomedical engineering · 2024Article
- Optically Coupled PtOEP and DPA Molecules Encapsulated into PLGA-Nanoparticles for Cancer Bioimaging.Biomedicines · 2022Article
- Neurotheranostics as personalized medicines.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2019Review
- Perspective review of what is needed for molecular-specific fluorescence-guided surgery.Journal of biomedical optics · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The development of imaging agents was initially driven following the discovery of X-ray technologies, but quickly evolved and expanded to include radiolabeling of cells and tissues to assist disease diagnosis and progression. The first imaging agents preceded the Great War but the field did not gain momentum until the 1950s. The approval rate for imaging NMEs continued at a high level for the remainder of the 20th century, but substantially decreased thereafter. This decline in approval rates corresponds with industry consolidation. Such losses have stabilized, but could have important implications for a field that has conveyed direct benefits to medicine and that could ensure the future of the wider biopharmaceutical industry.
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.