Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31240855›Full record

ReviewWiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology2019

The consolidation of nanomedicine.

Raphael Zingg, Marius Fischer

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. The application of nanomedicine in clinical settings.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. The consolidation of nanomedicine.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology · 2019
    Review
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

2 authors.

Raphael ZinggInstitute for Advanced Study, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-5298-4097
Marius FischerMax Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past two decades, nanomedicine has grown steadily, however, without inducing a palpable shift in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases so far. While this may simply be a consequence of the slow, incremental nature that characterizes many modern technologies, this article posits that there is another set of significant factors harboring explanatory power. Uncertainties concerning safety, regulatory, and ethical requirements may have prompted innovators to stay close to the known and approved, eventually at the cost of innovating in unexplored alleys. Network analysis of all nanomedicine patents in the United States reveals that nanomedicine has indeed rather consolidated than expanded. We detail a set of recommendations that would reduce the uncertainty prevailing in nanomedicine and could contribute to pushing new boundaries. This article is categorized under: Toxicology and Regulatory Issues in Nanomedicine > Regulatory and Policy Issues in Nanomedicine.

Indexed as

NanomedicineHumansPatents as TopicUnited Statesnanomedicine innovationnetwork analysispatent citationsregulatory uncertainty

Identifiers

PMID31240855
PMCPMC6852524

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.