| Title |
Novel drug-delivery systems for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.2147/dddt.s25199 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Silviu Albu |
| Abstract |
Chronic rhinosinusitis, one of the most common chronic medical complaints in the United States, seems to be increasing in incidence and prevalence, and has a significant impact on quality of life. Topical forms of medical therapy represent an attractive alternative for drug delivery to the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses. Topical drug delivery has the advantage of directly acting on the site of inflammation, producing a higher concentration at the target site while avoiding systemic side effects. Although considerable research has been undertaken into improving nasal formulations in order to enhance absorption, little attention has so far been directed to upgrading the delivery devices. The aim of this review is to present current knowledge on the novel drug-delivery devices in use in the management of chronic rhinosinusitis patients, and to present the current available knowledge on topical drug penetration into the sinuses using various delivery devices. Additionally, methods used to enhance fluid sinus deposition are presented and the published clinical studies on the results of nebulized antibiotics in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis patients are discussed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 54 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 13 | 24% |
| Unknown | 9 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 33% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 13% |
| Chemical Engineering | 4 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 9 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 01 June 2012.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#1,105
of 2,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,295
of 175,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 175,822 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.