Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32667250›Full record

ReviewJournal of ocular pharmacology and therapeutics : the official journal of the Association for Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics

Mucus-Penetrating Particles and the Role of Ocular Mucus as a Barrier to Micro- and Nanosuspensions.

Alexey Popov

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of ocular pharmacology and therapeutics : the official journal of the Association for Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Revolutionizing antibiotic therapy: Polymyxin B and FeJournal of pharmaceutical analysis · 2025
    Article
  5. Innovative triamcinolone acetonide microsuspension for Non-Invasive ocular management of inflammation.Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alexey PopovKala Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watertown, Massachusetts, USA.
Kala Pharmaceuticals (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ocular surface is naturally covered with a layer of mucus. Along with other functions, this mucus layer serves to trap and eliminate foreign substances, such as allergens, pathogens, and debris. In playing this pivotal role, mucus can also hinder topical delivery of therapeutics to the eye. Recent studies provide evidence that drugs formulated as traditional micro- or nanoparticles are susceptible to entrapment and rapid clearance by ocular mucus. Mucus-penetrating particles (MPPs) is a nanoparticle technology that emerged over the past decade. With a muco-inert surface and a particle size smaller than the mucus mesh size, MPPs can diffuse in

Indexed as

Administration, TopicalAnimalsDrug CompoundingDrug Delivery SystemsHumansMiceModels, AnimalMucusNanoparticlesOcular Physiological PhenomenaSurface Propertiesdrug deliverymucoadhesivemucus-penetrating particlesnanoparticlesocular mucusocular surface

Identifiers

PMID32667250
PMCPMC7405105
OpenAlexW3043485002

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.