ArticleNanoscale advances2024
Article in Nanoscale advances, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of inositol in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: an umbrella review of meta-analyses from randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Pooled it
- Nanotechnology in reproductive medicine: from gamete engineering to precision therapeutics.RSC advances · 2026Review
- Quality-by-Design Optimization of Mucoadhesive Trimethyl Chitosan-Coated Alginate/Dextran Sulfate Nanoparticles for Oral Insulin Delivery.Marine drugs · 2026Article
- Transcutaneous Delivery of Dual-Approach Oxaprozin and Apricot Kernel Oil Through a QbD Driven Nanoemulgel: Therapeutic Potential Against Osteoarthritis-Induced Animal Model.Pharmaceutical research · 2026Article
- Advancements in Autophagy Modulation for the Management of Oral Disease: A Focus on Drug Targets and Therapeutics.Biomedicines · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) is a multi-factorial endocrine disorder affecting women of reproductive age. However, its high prevalence and the unsuccessful translation of conventional modalities have made PCOS a pharmaco-therapeutic challenge. In the present study, we explored bi-formulations (comprising metformin-loaded mucus-penetrating nanoparticles, MTF-MPPs, and myoinositol-loaded mucus-penetrating particles, MI-MPPs) incorporated in a carbomer gel tailored for intravaginal administration. For the development and optimization of the MPPs-gel, a QbD (quality by design) approach was employed, including the initial and final risk assessment, central composite design of experts, and method validation. The optimized MTF-MPPs and MI-MPPs possessed an optimum nanometric particle size (195.0 nm and 178.8 nm, respectively) and a PDI of 0.150 and 0.123, respectively, together with a negligible negative zeta potential (-5.19 mV and -6.19 mV, respectively) through the vaginal mucus. It was observed that the MPPs are small and monodisperse with a neutral surface charge. It was observed that the MPPs-gel formulations released approximately 69.86 ± 4.65% of MTF and 67.14 ± 5.74% of MI within 120 h (5 days), which was observed to be sustained unlike MFT-MI-gel with approximately 94.89 ± 4.17% of MTF and 90.91 ± 15% of MI drugs released within 12 h. The confocal microscopy study of rhodamine-loaded MPPs indicated that they possessed a high fluorescence intensity at a depth of 15 μm, while as the penetration trajectory in the vaginal tissue increased to 35 μm, their intensity was reduced, appearing to be more prominent in the blood vessels. The analyzed data of MPPs-gel suggest that the optimized MPPs-gel formulation has potential to reach the targeted area
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.