↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Nanotheranostics – a review of recent publications

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Nanomedicine, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
159 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
198 Mendeley
Title
Nanotheranostics – a review of recent publications
Published in
International Journal of Nanomedicine, August 2012
DOI 10.2147/ijn.s33065
Pubmed ID
Authors

Li-Sheng Wang, Min-Chieh Chuang, Ja-an Annie Ho

Abstract

Theranostics is referred to as a treatment strategy that combines therapeutics with diagnostics, aiming to monitor the response to treatment and increase drug efficacy and safety, which would be a key part of personalized medicine and require considerable advances in predictive medicine. Theranostics associates with both a diagnosis that tests patients for possible reactions to taking new medication and targeted drug delivery based on the test results. Emerging nanotechnology provides a great deal of opportunity to design and develop such combination agents, permitting the delivery of therapeutics and concurrently allowing the detection modality to be used not only before or after but also throughout the entire treatment regimen. The introduction of nanotheranostics into routine health care has still a long way to go, since evaluations on cytotoxicity, genotoxicity, and immunotoxicity of prospective nanotheranostics, demonstration of cost-effectiveness, and availability of appropriate accessible testing systems are still required. An extensive review, from a chemistry point of view, of the recent development of nanotheranostics and its in vitro and in vivo applications are herein presented.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 198 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 2 1%
Brazil 2 1%
Mexico 2 1%
France 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Latvia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 187 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 20%
Researcher 36 18%
Student > Master 24 12%
Student > Bachelor 23 12%
Student > Postgraduate 10 5%
Other 30 15%
Unknown 35 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 37 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 27 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 20 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 8%
Engineering 15 8%
Other 40 20%
Unknown 43 22%
Attention Score in Context

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 18 October 2013.
All research outputs
#16,045,990
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#1,887
of 4,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,283
of 179,161 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#58
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,121 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 179,161 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.