↓ Skip to main content

Wiley Online Library

Nanoparticles in the clinic

Overview of attention for article published in Bioengineering & Translational Medicine, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#4 of 137)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
37 tweeters
patent
1 patent
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
647 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
972 Mendeley
Title
Nanoparticles in the clinic
Published in
Bioengineering & Translational Medicine, June 2016
DOI 10.1002/btm2.10003
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aaron C. Anselmo, Samir Mitragotri

Abstract

Nanoparticle/microparticle-based drug delivery systems for systemic (i.e., intravenous) applications have significant advantages over their nonformulated and free drug counterparts. For example, nanoparticle systems are capable of delivering therapeutics and treating areas of the body that other delivery systems cannot reach. As such, nanoparticle drug delivery and imaging systems are one of the most investigated systems in preclinical and clinical settings. Here, we will highlight the diversity of nanoparticle types, the key advantages these systems have over their free drug counterparts, and discuss their overall potential in influencing clinical care. In particular, we will focus on current clinical trials for nanoparticle formulations that have yet to be clinically approved. Additional emphasis will be on clinically approved nanoparticle systems, both for their currently approved indications and their use in active clinical trials. Finally, we will discuss many of the often overlooked biological, technological, and study design challenges that impact the clinical success of nanoparticle delivery systems.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 972 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Estonia 1 <1%
Unknown 967 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 286 29%
Student > Master 137 14%
Researcher 114 12%
Student > Bachelor 103 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 49 5%
Other 120 12%
Unknown 163 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 151 16%
Chemistry 139 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 129 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 85 9%
Engineering 69 7%
Other 200 21%
Unknown 199 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 November 2019.
All research outputs
#601,169
of 16,197,328 outputs
Outputs from Bioengineering & Translational Medicine
#4
of 137 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,234
of 266,582 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bioengineering & Translational Medicine
#1
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,197,328 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 137 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,582 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.