ReviewInternational journal of nanomedicine2026
Local Nanomedicine and Nano-Enabled Biomaterials After Glioblastoma Resection.
Review in International journal of nanomedicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite maximal safe resection and chemoradiotherapy, glioblastoma almost invariably recurs near the resection margin. Incomplete tumor removal is only one contributor; infiltrative residual cells, resistant stem-like states, wound-healing responses, local immunosuppression, and limited drug access also promote regrowth. This review examines stand-alone nanocarriers and nano-enabled composites in which nanoscale components are incorporated into hydrogels, scaffolds, or implants at the postoperative cavity-margin interface. Biomaterials lacking a functional nanoscale component are included only as design or procedural comparators. Postoperative resection models are distinguished from intratumoral, unresected orthotopic, ex vivo, and in vitro studies, which provide indirect support. Most evidence of efficacy remains preclinical, whereas human studies mainly address feasibility, safety, pharmacodynamic activity, or workflow precedent. Translation depends on reproducible retention, margin coverage, biologically matched release, brain safety, scalable manufacturing, and neurosurgical compatibility. Local nanomedicine thus remains a conditional postoperative strategy whose clinical value has yet to be established.
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.