Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29076214›Full record

ReviewNeuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society2017

Thinking Small: Progress on Microscale Neurostimulation Technology.

Joseph J Pancrazio, Felix Deku, Atefeh Ghazavi, Allison M Stiller, Rashed Rihani, Christopher L Frewin, Victor D Varner, Timothy J Gardner, Stuart F Cogan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. MnOAdvanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

9 authors.

Joseph J PancrazioDepartment of Bioengineering, The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA.
Felix DekuDepartment of Bioengineering, The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA.
Atefeh GhazaviDepartment of Bioengineering, The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA.
Allison M StillerDepartment of Bioengineering, The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA.
Rashed RihaniDepartment of Bioengineering, The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA.
Christopher L FrewinDepartment of Bioengineering, The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA.
Victor D VarnerDepartment of Bioengineering, The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA.
Timothy J GardnerDepartment of Biology, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA.
Stuart F CoganDepartment of Bioengineering, The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA.

Funding

High-Density Recording and Stimulating MicroelectrodesU01NS090454 · NINDS · BOSTON UNIVERSITY (CHARLES RIVER CAMPUS) · PI GARDNER, TIMOTHY JAMES · 2014 to 2016
$1.7M
NINDS NIH HHS U01 NS090454
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesNeural stimulation is well-accepted as an effective therapy for a wide range of neurological disorders. While the scale of clinical devices is relatively large, translational, and pilot clinical applications are underway for microelectrode-based systems. Microelectrodes have the advantage of stimulating a relatively small tissue volume which may improve selectivity of therapeutic stimuli. Current microelectrode technology is associated with chronic tissue response which limits utility of these devices for neural recording and stimulation. One approach for addressing the tissue response problem may be to reduce physical dimensions of the device. "Thinking small" is a trend for the electronics industry, and for implantable neural interfaces, the result may be a device that can evade the foreign body response. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis review paper surveys our current understanding pertaining to the relationship between implant size and tissue response and the state-of-the-art in ultrasmall microelectrodes. A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), and Google Scholar.

resultsThe literature review shows recent efforts to create microelectrodes that are extremely thin appear to reduce or even eliminate the chronic tissue response. With high charge capacity coatings, ultramicroelectrodes fabricated from emerging polymers, and amorphous silicon carbide appear promising for neurostimulation applications.

conclusionWe envision the emergence of robust and manufacturable ultramicroelectrodes that leverage advanced materials where the small cross-sectional geometry enables compliance within tissue. Nevertheless, future testing under in vivo conditions is particularly important for assessing the stability of thin film devices under chronic stimulation.

Indexed as

AnimalsElectrodes, ImplantedEquipment DesignHumansMicroelectrodesNeuronsCoatingdeep brain stimulationelectrodesmicroelectrodeneural interfaceneurostimulationstimulation

Identifiers

PMID29076214
PMCPMC5943060

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.