Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34345944›Full record

ReviewArchivum immunologiae et therapiae experimentalis2021

Should Nano-Particles be Weighed or Counted? Technical Considerations to In Vitro Testing Originated from Corpuscular Nature of Nano-Particles.

Wojciech Kałas

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Archivum immunologiae et therapiae experimentalis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Wojciech KałasHirszfeld Institute of Immunology and Experimental Therapy, Polish Academy of Sciences, Rudolfa Weigla 12, 53-114, Wrocław, Poland. wojciech.kalas@hirszfeld.pl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2656-5192

Funding

Instytut Immunologii i Terapii Doświadczalnej im. Ludwika Hirszfelda, Polskiej Akademii Nauk we Wrocławiu (PL) 3/2021
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The abundance of nanoparticles introduced to household products created the great expectations towards the application of nanotechnology in biology and medicine. That calls for cost-effective preliminary assessment of its cytotoxicity and biological activity. There are many attempts for creating proper guidance and standards for performing studies regarding nanoparticles. But still some important aspects crucial for in vitro testing of nanomaterials need more attention. Particulate nature is an obvious and widely unappreciated property of nanoparticles. In the context of in vitro studies, this property is critical, and it should be, but rarely is, considered when designing, performing, describing or interpreting the experiments involving the solid nanoparticles. First, we should be aware of relatively small and limited number of nanoparticles in the experimental setup. Even crude estimation of its number will be useful for proper interpretation of results. Second, we should not presume even distribution of particles in the solution, moreover we should expect that sedimentation and aggregation play an important role in interactions of nanoparticles with cells. In that case, expressing the dose in mass/volume units may lead as astray. Finally, the relation of size, weight, and number of nanoparticles makes comparisons of activity of nanoparticles of different sizes very complex. Estimations of number of nanoparticles in the dose should be an integral part of experiment design, its validation and interpretation.

Indexed as

NanoparticlesNanostructuresIn Vitro TechniquesNanotechnologyParticle SizeCytotoxicityDosingInorganic nanoparticlesIn vitroNano-compoundsNanoparticlesParticulate matter

Identifiers

PMID34345944
PMCPMC8332567

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.