Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30961303›Full record

ReviewPolymers2018

Implantable Polymeric Drug Delivery Devices: Classification, Manufacture, Materials, and Clinical Applications.

Sarah A Stewart, Juan Domínguez-Robles, Ryan F Donnelly, Eneko Larrañeta

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Polymers, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 107 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
107citing 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

107 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Current trends in exosomes as therapeutic drug delivery systems.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026
    Review
  7. Silk protein plastics for sustained and controlled drug release.International journal of pharmaceutics · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

47 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Sarah A StewartSchool of Pharmacy, Queen's University Belfast, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast BT9 7BL, UK. sstewart35@qub.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-0230-4625
Juan Domínguez-RoblesSchool of Pharmacy, Queen's University Belfast, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast BT9 7BL, UK. j.dominguezrobles@qub.ac.uk.
Ryan F DonnellySchool of Pharmacy, Queen's University Belfast, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast BT9 7BL, UK. r.donnelly@qub.ac.uk.
Eneko LarrañetaSchool of Pharmacy, Queen's University Belfast, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast BT9 7BL, UK. e.larraneta@qub.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-3710-0438

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The oral route is a popular and convenient means of drug delivery. However, despite its advantages, it also has challenges. Many drugs are not suitable for oral delivery due to: first pass metabolism; less than ideal properties; and side-effects of treatment. Additionally, oral delivery relies heavily on patient compliance. Implantable drug delivery devices are an alternative system that can achieve effective delivery with lower drug concentrations, and as a result, minimise side-effects whilst increasing patient compliance. This article gives an overview of classification of these drug delivery devices; the mechanism of drug release; the materials used for manufacture; the various methods of manufacture; and examples of clinical applications of implantable drug delivery devices.

Indexed as

designdrug deliveryimplantsmanufacture

Identifiers

PMID30961303
PMCPMC6401754

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.