Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39661327›Full record

ReviewNanomedicine (London, England)2025

Nanomedicine and clinical diagnostics part I: applications in conventional imaging (MRI, X-ray/CT, and ultrasound).

Ahmad Butt, Horacio Bach

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nanomedicine (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. 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

2 authors.

Ahmad ButtFaculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Horacio BachFaculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7740-9299

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Integrating nanotechnologies in diagnostic imaging presents a promising step forward compared to traditional methods, which carry certain limitations. Conventional imaging routes, such as X-ray/computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, derive significant advantages from nanoparticles (NPs), which allow researchers and clinicians to overcome some of the limitations of traditional imaging agents. In this literature review, we explore recent advancements in nanomaterials being applied in conventional diagnostic imaging techniques by exploring relevant reviews and original research papers (e.g. experimental models and theoretical model studies) in the literature. Collectively, there are numerous nanomaterials currently being examined for use in conventional imaging modalities, and each imaging technique has unique NPs with properties that can be manipulated to answer an array of clinical questions specific to that imaging modality. There are still challenges to consider, including getting regulatory approval for clinical research and routine use about long-term biocompatibility, which collectively emphasize the need for continued research to facilitate the integration of nanotechnology into routine clinical practice. Most importantly, there is a continued need for strong, collaborative efforts between researchers, biomedical engineers, clinicians, and industry stakeholders, which are necessary to bridge the persistent gap between translational ideas and implementation in clinical settings.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingNanomedicineNanoparticlesTomography, X-Ray ComputedUltrasonographyAnimalsContrast MediaHumansContrast Mediacomputed tomography (CT)contrast agentsconventional imagingdiagnostic imagingmagnetic resonance imaging (MRI)Nanotechnologyultrasound imagingX-ray

Identifiers

PMID39661327
PMCPMC11731363

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.