Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37509494›Full record

ReviewBiomedicines2023

Insights into Healthcare Professionals' Perceptions and Attitudes toward Nanotechnological Device Application: What Is the Current Situation in Glioblastoma Research?

Federica Ragucci, Francesca Sireci, Francesco Cavallieri, Jessica Rossi, Giuseppe Biagini, Giovanni Tosi, Chiara Lucchi, Rodolfo Molina-Pena, Natalia Helen Ferreira, Mariana Zarur and 14 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomedicines, 2023. 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

24 authors.

Federica RagucciNeurology Unit, Neuromotor and Rehabilitation Department, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, 42123 Reggio Emilia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3570-6519
Francesca SireciNeurology Unit, Neuromotor and Rehabilitation Department, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, 42123 Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Francesco CavallieriNeurology Unit, Neuromotor and Rehabilitation Department, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, 42123 Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Jessica RossiNeurology Unit, Neuromotor and Rehabilitation Department, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, 42123 Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Giuseppe BiaginiClinical and Experimental Medicine PhD Program, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, 41125 Modena, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7130-2511
Giovanni TosiDepartment of Life Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, 41125 Modena, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8318-667X
Chiara LucchiDepartment of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neural Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, 41125 Modena, Italy.
Rodolfo Molina-PenaInserm UMR 1307, CNRS UMR 6075, Université de Nantes, CRCI2NA, Université d'Angers, 49000 Angers, France.
Natalia Helen FerreiraInserm UMR 1307, CNRS UMR 6075, Université de Nantes, CRCI2NA, Université d'Angers, 49000 Angers, France.ORCID 0000-0002-0052-6139
Mariana ZarurDepartamento de Farmacología, Farmacia y Tecnología Farmacéutica, I+D Farma (GI-1645), Facultad de Farmacia, and Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (IDIS), Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Alba FerreirosNasasbiotech, S.L., Canton Grande 9, 15003 A Coruña, Spain.
William BourgeoisBraintech Lab, INSERM Unit 1205, Grenoble Alpes University, 38000 Grenoble, France.
François BergerBraintech Lab, INSERM Unit 1205, Grenoble Alpes University, 38000 Grenoble, France.
Miguel AbalTranslational Medical Oncology Group (Oncomet), Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (IDIS), University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela (SERGAS), 15706 Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Audrey RousseauInserm UMR 1307, CNRS UMR 6075, Université de Nantes, CRCI2NA, Université d'Angers, 49000 Angers, France.
Frank BouryInserm UMR 1307, CNRS UMR 6075, Université de Nantes, CRCI2NA, Université d'Angers, 49000 Angers, France.ORCID 0000-0002-3457-3988
Carmen Alvarez-LorenzoDepartamento de Farmacología, Farmacia y Tecnología Farmacéutica, I+D Farma (GI-1645), Facultad de Farmacia, and Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (IDIS), Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-8546-7085
Emmanuel GarcionInserm UMR 1307, CNRS UMR 6075, Université de Nantes, CRCI2NA, Université d'Angers, 49000 Angers, France.
Anna PisanelloNeurology Unit, Neuromotor and Rehabilitation Department, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, 42123 Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Giacomo PavesiDepartment of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neural Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, 41125 Modena, Italy.
Corrado IaccarinoDepartment of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neural Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, 41125 Modena, Italy.
Luca GhirottoQualitative Research Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, 42123 Reggio Emilia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-7632-1271
Maria Chiara BassiMedical Library, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, 42123 Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Franco ValzaniaNeurology Unit, Neuromotor and Rehabilitation Department, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, 42123 Reggio Emilia, Italy.

Funding

EURONANOMED 2019-075
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nanotechnology application in cancer treatment is promising and is likely to quickly spread worldwide in the near future. To date, most scientific studies on nanomaterial development have focused on deepening the attitudes of end users and experts, leaving clinical practice implications unexplored. Neuro-oncology might be a promising field for the application of nanotechnologies, especially for malignant brain tumors with a low-survival rate such as glioblastoma (GBM). As to improving patients' quality of life and life expectancy, innovative treatments are worth being explored. Indeed, it is important to explore clinicians' intention to use experimental technologies in clinical practice. In the present study, we conducted an exploratory review of the literature about healthcare workers' knowledge and personal opinions toward nanomedicine. Our search (i) gives evidence for disagreement between self-reported and factual knowledge about nanomedicine and (ii) suggests the internet and television as main sources of information about current trends in nanomedicine applications, over scientific journals and formal education. Current models of risk assessment suggest time-saving cognitive and affective shortcuts, i.e., heuristics support both laypeople and experts in the decision-making process under uncertainty, whereas they might be a source of error. Whether the knowledge is poor, heuristics are more likely to occur and thus clinicians' opinions and perspectives toward new technologies might be biased.

Indexed as

attitudesawarenessbiasbrain tumorcancergliomashealthcare professionalsnanotechnologypsychology

Identifiers

PMID37509494
PMCPMC10376482

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.