| Title |
Increased cutaneous wound healing effect of biodegradable liposomes containing madecassoside: preparation optimization, in vitro dermal permeation, and in vivo bioevaluation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s105035 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zehao Li, Meifeng Liu, Huijuan Wang, Song Du |
| Abstract |
Madecassoside (MA) is highly potent in treating skin disorders such as wounds and psoriasis. However, the topical wound healing effect of MA was hampered by its poor membrane permeability. In order to overcome this shortcoming, MA liposomes were designed and prepared by a double-emulsion method to enhance transdermal and wound healing effects. In this study, response surface methodology was adopted to yield the optimal preparation conditions of MA double-emulsion liposomes with average particle size of 151 nm and encapsulation efficiency of 70.14%. Moreover, MA double-emulsion liposomes demonstrated superior stability and homogeneous appearance in 5 months; their leakage rate was <12% even at 37°C and <5% at 4°C within 1 month. In vitro skin permeation, skin distribution, and burn wound healing of MA liposomal formulations were conducted for the first time to evaluate MA delivery efficiency and wound healing effect. The transdermal property and wound cure effect of MA double-emulsion liposomes were superior to those of MA film dispersion liposomes, and both the methods were endowed with an excellent performance by polyethylene glycol modification. In conclusion, double-emulsion liposome formulation was an applicable and promising pharmaceutical preparation for enhancing MA delivery toward wound healing effect and improving wound-healing progress. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 90 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 13% |
| Unspecified | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 19% |
| Unknown | 27 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 20 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 6 | 7% |
| Chemistry | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 17 | 19% |
| Unknown | 27 | 30% |
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 04 July 2016.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#2,469
of 4,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#225,314
of 353,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#98
of 123 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 4,123 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 353,662 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 123 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.