Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38837116›Full record

ReviewDrug delivery and translational research2024

Drug delivery to and through the skin.

Richard H Guy

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drug delivery and translational research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

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

1 author.

Richard H GuyDepartment of Life Sciences, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, BA2 7AY, U.K.. r.h.guy@bath.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-3227-9862

Funding

FDA HHS U01 FD006533
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Drug delivery technology has advanced significantly over >50 years, and has produced remarkable innovation, countless publications and conferences, and generations of talented and creative scientists. However, a critical review of the current state-of-the-art reveals that the translation of clever and sophisticated drug delivery technologies into products, which satisfy important, unmet medical needs and have been approved by the regulatory agencies, has - given the investment made in terms of time and money - been relatively limited. Here, this point of view is illustrated using a case study of technology for drug delivery into and through the skin and aims:  to examine the historical development of this field and the current state-of-the-art;  to understand why the translation of drug delivery technologies into products that improve clinical outcomes has been quite slow and inefficient; and  to suggest how the impact of technology may be increased and the process of concept to approved product accelerated.

Indexed as

Administration, CutaneousDrug Delivery SystemsSkinAnimalsHumansPharmaceutical PreparationsSkin AbsorptionPharmaceutical PreparationsDrug delivery technologySkin barrier functionSkin penetration enhancement – chemicalSkin penetration enhancement – physicalTopical and transdermal drug deliveryTopical formulations and metamorphosis

Identifiers

PMID38837116
PMCPMC11208237

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.