↓ Skip to main content

Nanotechnology in the management of cervical cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Reviews in Medical Virology, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Nanotechnology in the management of cervical cancer
Published in
Reviews in Medical Virology, March 2015
DOI 10.1002/rmv.1825
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jiezhong Chen, Wenyi Gu, Lei Yang, Chen Chen, Renfu Shao, Kewei Xu, Zhi Ping Xu

Abstract

Cervical cancer is a major disease with high mortality. All cervical cancers are caused by infection with human papillomaviruses (HPV). Although preventive vaccines for cervical cancer are successful, treatment of cervical cancer is far less satisfactory because of multidrug resistance and side effects. In this review, we summarize the recent application of nanotechnology to the diagnosis and treatment of cervical cancer as well as the development of HPV vaccines. Early detection of cervical cancer enables tumours to be efficiently removed by surgical procedures, leading to increased survival rate. The current method of detecting cervical cancer by Pap smear can only achieve 50% sensitivity, whereas nanotechnology has been used to detect HPVs with greatly improved sensitivity. In cervical cancer treatment, nanotechnology has been used for the delivery of anticancer drugs to increase treatment efficacy and decrease side effects. Nanodelivery of HPV preventive and therapeutic vaccines has also been investigated to increase vaccine efficacy. Overall, these developments suggest that nanoparticle-based vaccine may become the most effective way to prevent and treat cervical cancer, assisted or combined with some other nanotechnology-based therapy. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 1%
Indonesia 1 1%
France 1 1%
Unknown 94 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Student > Master 10 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 6%
Student > Postgraduate 4 4%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 40 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 9%
Chemistry 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 42 43%
Attention Score in Context

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 11 March 2015.
All research outputs
#19,922,330
of 24,484,013 outputs
Outputs from Reviews in Medical Virology
#630
of 727 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,847
of 263,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reviews in Medical Virology
#7
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,484,013 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 727 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.3. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 263,114 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.