Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29890643›Full record

ReviewMedicines (Basel, Switzerland)2018

Mini-Review: Assessing the Potential Impact of Microneedle Technologies on Home Healthcare Applications.

Aaron McConville, Catherine Hegarty, James Davis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Medicines (Basel, Switzerland), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. A Bioinspired and Cost-Effective Device for Minimally Invasive Blood Sampling.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Coated polymeric needles for rapid and deep intradermal delivery.International journal of pharmaceutics: X · 2020
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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.

Aaron McConvilleSchool of Engineering, Ulster University, Jordanstown BT37 0QB, UK. mcconville-a4@ulster.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-9644-9029
Catherine HegartySchool of Engineering, Ulster University, Jordanstown BT37 0QB, UK. Hegarty-c19@ulster.ac.uk.
James DavisSchool of Engineering, Ulster University, Jordanstown BT37 0QB, UK. james.davis@ulster.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The increasing devolution of healthcare towards community care has meant that the management of many conditions is conducted within the home either by community nurses or by the patients themselves. The administration of medicines within home healthcare scenarios can however be problematic—especially when considering the delivery of medicines through injection. The possibility of needlestick injury (NSI) has become an ever-present hazard within healthcare settings, with a significant proportion of percutaneous injuries occurring during the handling and disposal of the needle. The emergence of transdermal microneedle systems, however, offers a potentially revolutionary advance and could dramatically improve safety—particularly within home healthcare where there are mounting concerns over the use and disposal of sharps. A mini-review of the advantages proffered by microneedle drug delivery technologies is presented and the potential impact on delivery of medicines within the home is critically appraised.

Indexed as

bloodborne pathogenmicroneedleneedlesticksharps disposaltransdermal

Identifiers

PMID29890643
PMCPMC6023334

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.