Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35733671›Full record

ReviewRSC advances2022

Margarita R Chetyrkina, Fedor S Fedorov, Albert G Nasibulin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in RSC advances, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Bridging solubility, stability, and translation: advances in carbon nanotube-based drug delivery systems.Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

3 authors.

Margarita R ChetyrkinaSkolkovo Institute of Science and Technology Nobel Str. 3 143026 Moscow Russia albert.nasibulin@aalto.fi.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8524-2222
Fedor S FedorovSkolkovo Institute of Science and Technology Nobel Str. 3 143026 Moscow Russia albert.nasibulin@aalto.fi.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2283-0086
Albert G NasibulinSkolkovo Institute of Science and Technology Nobel Str. 3 143026 Moscow Russia albert.nasibulin@aalto.fi.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1684-3948

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Carbon nanotube (CNT) toxicity-related issues provoke many debates in the scientific community. The controversial and disputable data about toxicity doses, proposed hazard effects, and human health concerns significantly restrict CNT applications in biomedical studies, laboratory practices, and industry, creating a barrier for mankind in the way of understanding how exactly the material behaves in contact with living systems. Raising the toxicity question again, many research groups conclude low toxicity of the material and its potential safeness at some doses for contact with biological systems. To get new momentum for researchers working on the intersection of the biological field and nanomaterials,

Identifiers

PMID35733671
PMCPMC9152879

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.