Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
1.
Adv Drug Deliv Rev ; 65(6): 800-10, 2013 Jun 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23415952

ABSTRACT

Oral delivery is an attractive route to deliver therapeutics via nanoparticles due to its ease of administration and patient compliance. This review discusses laboratory techniques for studying oral delivery of nanoparticles, which offer protection of cargo through the gastrointestinal tract. Some of the difficulties in modeling oral delivery include the harsh acidic environment, variable pH, and the tight monolayer of endothelial cells present throughout the gastrointestinal tract. The use of in vitro techniques including the Transwell ® system, simulated gastric/intestinal fluid, and diffusion chambers addresses these challenges. When studying effects after oral delivery in vivo, bioimaging of nanoparticle biodistribution using radioactive markers has been popular. Functional assays such as immune response and systemic protein concentration analysis can further define the merits of the oral delivery systems. As biologics become increasingly more important in chronic therapies, nanoparticle-mediated oral delivery will assume greater prominence, and more sophisticated in vitro and in vivo models will be required.


Subject(s)
Drug Carriers/administration & dosage , Drug Carriers/pharmacokinetics , Gastrointestinal Tract/metabolism , Models, Biological , Nanoparticles/administration & dosage , Administration, Oral , Animals , Biological Availability , Cell Line , Disease Models, Animal , Drug Evaluation, Preclinical , Hematologic Tests , Humans , Immunoassay , Polymerase Chain Reaction , Radionuclide Imaging
2.
J Dance Med Sci ; 16(4): 139-53, 2012 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26731091

ABSTRACT

This technical report of the Standard Measures Consensus Initiative of the International Association for Dance Medicine and Science (IADMS) describes the results of the committee's multi-year effort to synthesize information regarding the tests and measures used in dance-related research, protocols for reporting injuries, and appropriate use of available technologies to aid in standardizing such matters. Specific recommendations are presented, with accompanying rationales, to facilitate consensus among members of the dance medicine and science community. An Executive Summary of this Technical Report, which contains implementation strategies and appendices, should soon be available on the IADMS website.


Subject(s)
Dancing/standards , Primary Prevention/standards , Wounds and Injuries/diagnosis , Wounds and Injuries/therapy , Athletic Injuries/diagnosis , Athletic Injuries/therapy , Humans , International Cooperation , Risk Assessment/standards , United States
3.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther ; 38(3): 126-36, 2008 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-18383646

ABSTRACT

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective descriptive cohort study. OBJECTIVES: To describe the distribution and rate of injuries in elite adolescent ballet dancers, and to examine the utility of screening data to distinguish between injured and noninjured dancers. BACKGROUND: Adolescent dancers account for most ballet injuries. Limited information exists, however, regarding the distribution of, rate of, and risk factors for, adolescent dance injuries. METHODS AND MEASURES: Two hundred four dancers (age, 9-20 years) were screened over 5 years. Screening data were collected at the beginning and injury data were collected at the end of each training year. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize distribution and rate of injuries. Inference statistics were used to examine differences between injured and noninjured dancers. RESULTS: Fifty-three percent of injuries occurred in the foot/ankle, 21.6% in the hip, 16.1% in the knee, and 9.4% in the back. Thirty-two to fifty-one percent of the dancers were injured each year, and, over the 5 years, there were 1.09 injuries per 1000 athletic exposures, and 0.77 injuries per 1000 hours of dance. Significant differences between injured and noninjured dancers were limited to current disability scores (P = .007), history of low back pain (P = .017), right foot pronation (P = .005), insufficient right-ankle plantar flexion (P = .037), and lower extremity strength (P = .045). CONCLUSION: Distribution of injuries was similar to that of other studies. Injury rates were lower than most reported rates, except when expressed per 1000 hours of dance. Few differences were found between injured and noninjured dancers. These findings should be considered when designing and implementing screening programs.


Subject(s)
Athletic Injuries/prevention & control , Dancing/injuries , Leg Injuries/prevention & control , Risk Assessment/methods , Adolescent , Athletic Injuries/epidemiology , Chi-Square Distribution , District of Columbia , Female , Humans , Incidence , Leg Injuries/epidemiology , Male , Population Surveillance , Retrospective Studies , Statistics, Nonparametric
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...