ArticleNanomedicine (London, England)2025
Current views and trends of nanomaterials as vectors for gene delivery since the 21st century: a bibliometric analysis.
Article in Nanomedicine (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGene therapy is garnering increasing support due to its potential for a "once-delivered, lifelong benefit." The limitations of traditional gene delivery methods have spurred the advancement of bionanomaterials. Despite this progress, a thorough analysis of the evolution, current state, key contributors, focal studies, and future directions of nanomaterials in gene delivery remains absent.
methodsThis study scrutinizes articles from the Web of Science, spanning 1 January 2 000, to 31 December 2023, employing various online tools for analysis and visualization.
resultsThe 21st century has witnessed consistent growth in scholarly work in this domain globally, with notable contributions from China and the US. At the same time, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), Harvard University, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have emerged as the most productive institutions, with CAS's academician Weihong Tan becoming the field's leading author. While drug delivery and nanoparticles (NPs) have been central themes for two decades, the research focus has shifted from modifying NPs and ultrafine particles to exploring polymer-hybrid NPs, mRNA vaccines, immune responses, green synthesis, and CRISPR/Cas tools.
conclusionsThis shift marks the transition from nanomaterials to bionanomaterials. The insights provided by this research offer a comprehensive overview of the field and valuable guidance for future investigations.
Indexed as
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.