ReviewGels (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Gel-Based Drug Delivery Platforms: A Critical, Mechanistic Review of Design, Cross-Linking, and Disease-Specific Translation (2010-2026).
Review in Gels (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gel-based novel drug delivery systems (NDDS) occupy a mechanistically distinct niche among controlled-release platforms because they decouple three design variablesnetwork cross-link density, continuous-phase polarity, and stimulus sensitivitythat in particulate carriers (liposomes, polymeric nanoparticles) are often interdependent. This critical review synthesizes 102 primary and secondary sources published predominantly between 2010 and 2026 to interrogate, rather than merely catalog, how hydrogels, organogels, aerogels, nanogels, in situ gelling systems, and hydrogel-forming microneedles have been engineered for site-specific pharmacotherapy. Beyond a taxonomic overview, the review quantitatively contrasts formulation parameters sol-gel transition temperatures (typically 32-37 °C for poloxamer 407/188 systems), swelling ratios, mesh sizes, and reported drug-release half-lives across oncology, chronic diabetic wound care, ophthalmic and nasal-to-brain delivery, musculoskeletal (intra-articular) therapy, subunit vaccine depots, periodontal pocket therapy, and glucose-responsive insulin delivery. Particular attention is paid to the mechanistic basis of burst release, the porosity-mechanical-integrity trade-off inherent to interconnected hydrogel networks, and the divergence between preclinical rodent efficacy and the comparatively sparse controlled human trial data available for most gel platforms. The review concludes that while stimuli-responsive and 3D/4D-printed gel architectures have matured substantially as engineering constructs, clinical translation remains bottlenecked less by materials science than by inconsistent characterization standards, unresolved terminal-sterilization compatibility, and a paucity of head-to-head comparative trials against existing standard-of-care formulations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42794341What 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.