ReviewDiscover nano2025
Systematic review of peptide nanoparticles for improved diabetes outcomes: insights and opportunities.
Review in Discover nano, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Oral GLP-1-Based Therapeutics in the Obesity-Metabolic Syndrome-Diabetes Continuum: Translational Advances, Clinical Barriers, and Emerging Strategies.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This present study carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of peptide nanoparticles in diabetes management for improved patient outcomes from 2014 to 2024. Different electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ResearchGate, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library, were searched for relevant literature using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and boolean operators. A total of 317 articles were obtained and include PUBMED (39), Scopus (215), ResearchGate (30), Google Scholar (25), and Cochrane Library (8). From these, 186 duplicate entries were eliminated, while 76 articles were dismissed for some reasons. After scanning the titles, abstracts, and contents of the remaining 55 articles for relevance, 22 articles were eliminated. After a full-text screening using inclusion/exclusion criteria, an additional 11 articles were discarded, while 4 were excluded during the data extraction phase. In the end, seven (7) publications were considered relevant based on the eligibility criteria, representing 2.22%. Results showed that sequential exclusion of the studies did not have a significant impact on the effects of peptide nanoparticles on glucose control, insulin delivery, bioavailability, efficacy, safety, and patient outcomes in diabetes management. Also, peptide nanoparticles had positive improvement on glycemic control, insulin levels, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) levels, and overall patient outcomes. The study concludes that peptide nanoparticles harbour the potential to improve diabetes management through enhanced glucose control, insulin delivery, and patient outcomes. However, there is a significant gap in knowledge. Further research is required to understand the long-term safety and efficacy of many of the enlisted nanoparticles. Additionally, future studies should explore a wider range of peptides and proteins for encapsulation, develop delivery systems for larger and conformationally diverse molecules, and improve the oral bioavailability of encapsulated therapeutics. Long-term clinical trials are needed to validate this approach in humans and elucidate the underlying mechanisms for optimal treatment design. If these knowledge gaps are addressed, peptide nanoparticles will unavoidably become a powerful tool for effective management of diabetes along with traditional methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.