ArticlePolymers2026
Biomimetic Material Selection for Therapeutic Microneedles: An Analytic Hierarchy Process-Based Multi-Criteria Evaluation.
Article in Polymers, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microneedles are a new technology in transdermal drug delivery that allows for the pain-free administration of drugs. Recently, these microneedles have gained popularity compared to traditional injections. Nevertheless, the selection of the most suitable materials is a significant issue, requiring a systematic analysis of various performance parameters. This paper developed a multi-criteria decision-making model based on the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to systematically evaluate four primary material types for therapeutic microneedle applications: polymers, metals, ceramics, and silicon. The researchers defined five performance criteria, ranked by importance: biocompatibility (48.8%), mechanical properties (25.3%), manufacturability (15.8%), cost-effectiveness (6.6%), and compatibility with different types of microneedles (3.5%). The validity of the framework was established using the TOPSIS and ELECTRE methods, which showed strong agreement in the rankings, and a sensitivity analysis revealed that the rankings did not change with a ±20% variation in the parameters in 95% of the cases. The outcomes indicated that polymers are the most suitable, with the highest global priority score (38.3%), and they are good in biocompatibility (53.0% local priority), manufacturability (53.3%), and relative cost advantages (62.2%), though medical-grade polymer costs remain substantial. Metals were placed second (31.8%) due to their better mechanical properties (50.3%), followed by ceramics (17.6%) and silicon-based materials (12.3%). The framework offers clear decision guidelines: polymers for dissolving microneedle systems and controlled drug release applications; metals for precise liquid delivery devices; ceramics for specialized pharmaceutical uses that require extreme chemical compatibility; and silicon for research applications requiring precise geometries.
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.