Home › Research › Vascular contributions
A Review of the Common Neurodegenerative Disorders: Current Therapeutic Approaches and the Potential Role of Nanotherapeutics
Lamptey RNL, Chaulagain B, Trivedi R, Gothwal A, Layek B, Singh J.. International journal of molecular sciences, 2022-02-06
Topic: Disease mechanisms in lab and animal studies
Neurodegenerative disorders are primarily characterized by neuron loss. The most common neurodegenerative disorders include Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease. Although there are several medicines currently approved for managing neurodegenerative disorders, a large majority of them only help with associated symptoms. This lack of pathogenesis-targeting therapies is primarily due to the restrictive effects of the blood-brain barrier (BBB), which keeps close to 99% of all "foreign substances" out of the brain. Since their discovery, nanoparticles have been successfully used for targeted delivery into many organs, including the brain. This review briefly describes the pathophysiology of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and their current management approaches. We then highlight the major challenges of brain-drug delivery, followed by the role of nanotherapeutics for the diagnosis and treatment of various neurological disorders.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Lamptey, R. N. L., Chaulagain, B., Trivedi, R., Gothwal, A., Layek, B., & Singh, J. (2022). A Review of the Common Neurodegenerative Disorders: Current Therapeutic Approaches and the Potential Role of Nanotherapeutics. International journal of molecular sciences. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23031851
Vancouver
Lamptey RNL, Chaulagain B, Trivedi R, Gothwal A, Layek B, Singh J. A Review of the Common Neurodegenerative Disorders: Current Therapeutic Approaches and the Potential Role of Nanotherapeutics. International journal of molecular sciences. 2022. doi:10.3390/ijms23031851. PMID: 35163773.
BibTeX
@article{lamptey2022-35163773,
author = {Lamptey, R. N. L. and Chaulagain, B. and Trivedi, R. and Gothwal, A. and Layek, B. and Singh, J.},
title = {{A Review of the Common Neurodegenerative Disorders: Current Therapeutic Approaches and the Potential Role of Nanotherapeutics}},
journal = {International journal of molecular sciences},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.3390/ijms23031851},
pmid = {35163773},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23031851}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Although there are several medicines currently approved for managing neurodegenerative disorders, a large majority of them only help with associated symptoms.
- This lack of pathogenesis-targeting therapies is primarily due to the restrictive effects of the blood-brain barrier (BBB), which keeps close to 99% of all "foreign substances" out of the brain.
- Since their discovery, nanoparticles have been successfully used for targeted delivery into many organs, including the brain.
- This review briefly describes the pathophysiology of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and their current management approaches.
- We then highlight the major challenges of brain-drug delivery, followed by the role of nanotherapeutics for the diagnosis and treatment of various neurological disorders.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 43/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (International journal of molecular sciences) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 35163773) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 25 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100. |
| Total | 43 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Vascular contributions
Also tagged “repurposing”
234 studies in the library carry the topic tag “repurposing”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 234 tagged studies.