↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

A review on current nanomaterials and their drug conjugate for targeted breast cancer treatment

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Nanomedicine, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 Mendeley
Title
A review on current nanomaterials and their drug conjugate for targeted breast cancer treatment
Published in
International Journal of Nanomedicine, March 2017
DOI 10.2147/ijn.s127329
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joanna Jinling Lee, Latifah Saiful Yazan, Che Azurahanim Che Abdullah

Abstract

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy worldwide, especially among women, with substantial after-treatment effects. The survival rates of breast cancer have decreased over the years even with the existence of various therapeutic strategies, specifically, chemotherapy. Clinical drugs administered for breast cancer appear to be non-targeting to specific cancer sites leading to severe side effects and potentially harming healthy cells instead of just killing cancer cells. This leads to the need for designing a targeted drug delivery system. Nanomaterials, both organic and inorganic, are potential drug nanocarriers with the ability of targeting, imaging and tracking. Various types of nanomaterials have been actively researched together with their drug conjugate. In this review, we focus on selected nanomaterials, namely solid-lipid, liposomal, polymeric, magnetic nanoparticles, quantum dots, and carbon nanotubes and their drug conjugates, for breast cancer studies. Their advantages, disadvantages and previously conducted studies were highlighted.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 <1%
Unknown 141 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 18%
Student > Master 26 18%
Researcher 20 14%
Student > Bachelor 15 11%
Other 5 4%
Other 9 6%
Unknown 41 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 30 21%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 17 12%
Chemistry 14 10%
Engineering 8 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 4%
Other 24 17%
Unknown 43 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 11 April 2017.
All research outputs
#6,350,734
of 11,340,339 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#747
of 2,260 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,118
of 262,989 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#16
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,340,339 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,260 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 262,989 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.