Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26578854›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in neuroscience2015

Markers for blood-brain barrier integrity: how appropriate is Evans blue in the twenty-first century and what are the alternatives?

Norman R Saunders, Katarzyna M Dziegielewska, Kjeld Møllgård, Mark D Habgood

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 179 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
179citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

179 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Chemogenetic modulation of CNS pericytes: Impact on pericyte CaMolecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Assessment of Blood-Brain Barrier Integrity Using Dyes and Tracers.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025
    Article

119 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Norman R SaundersLaboratory of Developmental Neurobiology and Neurotrauma, Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of Melbourne Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Katarzyna M DziegielewskaLaboratory of Developmental Neurobiology and Neurotrauma, Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of Melbourne Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Kjeld MøllgårdDepartment of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, University of Copenhagen Copenhagen, Denmark.
Mark D HabgoodLaboratory of Developmental Neurobiology and Neurotrauma, Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of Melbourne Parkville, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years there has been a resurgence of interest in brain barriers and various roles their intrinsic mechanisms may play in neurological disorders. Such studies require suitable models and markers to demonstrate integrity and functional changes at the interfaces between blood, brain, and cerebrospinal fluid. Studies of brain barrier mechanisms and measurements of plasma volume using dyes have a long-standing history, dating back to the late nineteenth-century. Their use in blood-brain barrier studies continues in spite of their known serious limitations in in vivo applications. These were well known when first introduced, but seem to have been forgotten since. Understanding these limitations is important because Evans blue is still the most commonly used marker of brain barrier integrity and those using it seem oblivious to problems arising from its in vivo application. The introduction of HRP in the mid twentieth-century was an important advance because its reaction product can be visualized at the electron microscopical level, but it also has limitations. Advantages and disadvantages of these markers will be discussed together with a critical evaluation of alternative approaches. There is no single marker suitable for all purposes. A combination of different sized, visualizable dextrans and radiolabeled molecules currently seems to be the most appropriate approach for qualitative and quantitative assessment of barrier integrity.

Indexed as

blood-brain barrierembryofetusnewbornpermeabilitytight junctions

Identifiers

PMID26578854
PMCPMC4624851

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.