ArticleJournal of neuroscience methods2012
A method for the intracranial delivery of reagents to voltammetric recording sites.
Article in Journal of neuroscience methods, 2012. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Carbon fiber microelectrodes are widely used for electrochemical monitoring in the intact brain. The local delivery of reagents to the recording site is often desirable. The approach of co-implanting a micropipette near the microelectrode presents some limitations that are overcome by the use of double-barreled devices. One barrel supports the carbon fiber and the other barrel serves as a pipet for local reagent delivery. Some studies have used iontophoretic delivery but here we consider the alternative approach of pressure ejection. However, placing the pipet so close to the electrode raises the risk that reagent can leak into the recording site. This problem is easily solved. We filled the tip of the pipet with vehicle solution, the barrel with a reagent solution, and separated the two solutions with an air gap to prevent their mixing. With this approach, reagent is delivered only after 'priming' pressure pulses: we show in two examples that unintended reagent delivery (leakage) prior to the priming pulses is non-detectable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.