ReviewPharmaceutics2026
Safety, In Vivo Fate, and Degradation of MOF Nanomedicines: Toward Translational Evaluation.
Review in Pharmaceutics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances and Prospects in MOF-Based Platforms for Tumor Hyperthermia.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Nanomedicine for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: From Pathophysiological Mechanisms and Disease Heterogeneity to Precision Therapy.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
- ZIF-8 Nanodrug Delivery Systems: Construction Strategies, Functional Modifications, and Advances in Synergistic Tumor Therapy.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
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
Abstract
Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) are porous hybrid nanomaterials assembled from metal ions or clusters and organic ligands. Owing to their tunable structures, versatile compositions, and exceptional payload capacities, MOF-based systems have attracted increasing interest in drug delivery and theranostics. Yet, despite rapid progress in efficacy-focused studies, translational evaluation remains limited by incomplete evidence on safety, in vivo fate (pharmacokinetics), and degradation. This review examines MOF nanomedicines through a three-element evidence-chain framework and a four-level material evaluation and substantiation (MES) grading system to relate commonly reported endpoints to development-relevant questions. Major degradation patterns across representative MOF families are summarized, and the influence of surface engineering on safety, in vivo fate, and degradation is discussed. Representative studies are re-examined to illustrate how evidence gaps in these dimensions may affect translational interpretation. Key priorities for the field include dose standardization, quantitative in vivo evaluation, harmonized degradation assays, long-term and repeat-dose studies, and more consistent formulation reporting. By integrating these issues into a unified evidence-chain framework, this review aims to support a more comparable, interpretable, and development-relevant evaluation of MOF nanomedicine research.
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.