Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33228098›Full record

ReviewPharmaceutics2020

The Current Status of Clinical Research Involving Microneedles: A Systematic Review.

Seung-Yeon Jeong, Jung-Hwan Park, Ye-Seul Lee, Youn-Sub Kim, Ji-Yeun Park, Song-Yi Kim

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pharmaceutics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Prevention of Ageing-The Role of Micro-Needling in Neck and Cleavage Rejuvenation: A Narrative Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Seung-Yeon JeongDepartment of Anatomy and Acupoint, College of Korean Medicine, Gachon University, Seongnam 13120, Korea.
Jung-Hwan ParkDepartment of BioNano Technology and Gachon BioNano Research Institute, Gachon University, Seongnam 13120, Korea.
Ye-Seul LeeDepartment of Anatomy and Acupoint, College of Korean Medicine, Gachon University, Seongnam 13120, Korea.
Youn-Sub KimDepartment of Anatomy and Acupoint, College of Korean Medicine, Gachon University, Seongnam 13120, Korea.
Ji-Yeun ParkCollege of Korean Medicine, Daejeon University, Daejeon 34520, Korea.
Song-Yi KimDepartment of Anatomy and Acupoint, College of Korean Medicine, Gachon University, Seongnam 13120, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-3512-2134
Gachon University · KRDaejeon University · KR

Funding

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIP; Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning) 2017R1C1B5018164
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, a number of clinical trials have been published on the efficacy and safety of drug delivery using microneedles (MNs). This review aims to systematically summarize and analyze the current evidence including the clinical effect and safety of MNs. Three electronic databases, including PubMed, were used to search the literature for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs) that evaluated the therapeutic efficacy of MNs from their inception to 28 June 2018. Data were extracted according to the characteristics of study subjects; disorder, types, and details of the intervention (MNs) and control groups; outcome measurements; effectiveness; and incidence of adverse events (AEs). Overall, 31 RCTs and seven CCTs met the inclusion criteria. Although MNs were commonly used in skin-related studies, evaluating the effects of MNs was difficult because many studies did not provide adequate comparison values between groups. For osteoporosis treatment, vaccine, and insulin delivery studies, MNs were comparable to or more effective than the gold standard. Regarding the safety of MNs, most AEs reported in each study were minor (grade 1 or 2). A well-designed RCT is necessary to clearly evaluate the effectiveness of MNs in the future.

Indexed as

microneedlerandomized controlled trialresearch and developmentsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33228098
PMCPMC7699365
OpenAlexW3104239732

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.