Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37125102›Full record

ReviewACS omega2023

Smart Nanomaterials in Cancer Theranostics: Challenges and Opportunities.

Brijendra Kumar Kashyap, Virendra Vikram Singh, Manoj Kumar Solanki, Anil Kumar, Janne Ruokolainen, Kavindra Kumar Kesari

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in ACS omega, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 92 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
92citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
31.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

92 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 284 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

32 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Brijendra Kumar KashyapDepartment of Biotechnology Engineering, Institute of Engineering and Technology, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi 284128, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Virendra Vikram SinghDefence Research and Development Establishment, DRDO, Gwalior 474002, Madhya Pradesh, India.
Manoj Kumar SolankiFaculty of Natural Sciences, Plant Cytogenetics and Molecular Biology Group, Institute of Biology, Biotechnology and Environmental Protection, University of Silesia in Katowice, 40-007 Katowice, Poland.
Anil KumarDepartment of Life Sciences, School of Natural Sciences, Central University of Jharkhand, Cheri-Manatu, Karmre, Kanke 835222, Ranchi, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2123-1994
Janne RuokolainenDepartment of Applied Physics, School of Science, Aalto University, 02150 Espoo, Finland.
Kavindra Kumar KesariDepartment of Applied Physics, School of Science, Aalto University, 02150 Espoo, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3622-9555
Aalto University · FIBundelkhand University · INCentral University of Jharkhand · INDefence Research and Development Establishment · INUniversity of Helsinki · FIUniversity of Silesia in Katowice · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cancer is ranked as the second leading cause of death globally. Traditional cancer therapies including chemotherapy are flawed, with off-target and on-target toxicities on the normal cells, requiring newer strategies to improve cell selective targeting. The application of nanomaterial has been extensively studied and explored as chemical biology tools in cancer theranostics. It shows greater applications toward stability, biocompatibility, and increased cell permeability, resulting in precise targeting, and mitigating the shortcomings of traditional cancer therapies. The nanoplatform offers an exciting opportunity to gain targeting strategies and multifunctionality. The advent of nanotechnology, in particular the development of smart nanomaterials, has transformed cancer diagnosis and treatment. The large surface area of nanoparticles is enough to encapsulate many molecules and the ability to functionalize with various biosubstrates such as DNA, RNA, aptamers, and antibodies, which helps in theranostic action. Comparatively, biologically derived nanomaterials perceive advantages over the nanomaterials produced by conventional methods in terms of economy, ease of production, and reduced toxicity. The present review summarizes various techniques in cancer theranostics and emphasizes the applications of smart nanomaterials (such as organic nanoparticles (NPs), inorganic NPs, and carbon-based NPs). We also critically discussed the advantages and challenges impeding their translation in cancer treatment and diagnostic applications. This review concludes that the use of smart nanomaterials could significantly improve cancer theranostics and will facilitate new dimensions for tumor detection and therapy.

Identifiers

PMID37125102
PMCPMC10134471
OpenAlexW4364381146

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.