Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26794270›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Drug discovery2016

From blood-brain barrier to blood-brain interface: new opportunities for CNS drug delivery.

William A Banks

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Drug discovery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 550 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
550citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

550 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Biologic Therapies for Alleviating Neurodegeneration in Lysosomal Storage Diseases.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2026
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

490 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

1 author.

William A BanksVeterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Geriatrics Research Education and Clinical Center and Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Division of Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, 1660 South Columbian Way, Seattle, Washington 98108, USA.

Funding

Intranasal Insulin in a Mouse Model of Alzheimer's DiseaseR01AG046619 · NIA · SEATTLE INST FOR BIOMEDICAL/CLINICAL RES · PI BANKS, WILLIAM A · 2014 to 2018
$2.4M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG046619
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the biggest challenges in the development of therapeutics for central nervous system (CNS) disorders is achieving sufficient blood-brain barrier (BBB) penetration. Research in the past few decades has revealed that the BBB is not only a substantial barrier for drug delivery to the CNS but also a complex, dynamic interface that adapts to the needs of the CNS, responds to physiological changes, and is affected by and can even promote disease. This complexity confounds simple strategies for drug delivery to the CNS, but provides a wealth of opportunities and approaches for drug development. Here, I review some of the most important areas that have recently redefined the BBB and discuss how they can be applied to the development of CNS therapeutics.

Indexed as

Blood-Brain BarrierCentral Nervous System DiseasesBiological TransportCentral Nervous System AgentsDrug Delivery SystemsHumansMedication Therapy ManagementCentral Nervous System Agents

Identifiers

PMID26794270

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.