Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30424363›Full record

ReviewMicromachines2018

Chronically Implanted Intracranial Electrodes: Tissue Reaction and Electrical Changes.

Andrew Campbell, Chengyuan Wu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Micromachines, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 75 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
75citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Termination of super-refractory status epilepticus following stereo-EEG implantation.Epileptic disorders : international epilepsy journal with videotape · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Full-Stack Architectures for Intelligent Brain-Computer Interfaces.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. In vivo microelectrode arrays for neuroscience.Nature reviews. Methods primers · 2025
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

15 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

2 authors.

Andrew CampbellSidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA. andrew.campbell@jefferson.edu.
Chengyuan WuDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Vickie and Jack Farber Institute for Neuroscience, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA. chengyuan.wu@jefferson.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-3954-2929

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The brain-electrode interface is arguably one of the most important areas of study in neuroscience today. A stronger foundation in this topic will allow us to probe the architecture of the brain in unprecedented functional detail and augment our ability to intervene in disease states. Over many years, significant progress has been made in this field, but some obstacles have remained elusive-notably preventing glial encapsulation and electrode degradation. In this review, we discuss the tissue response to electrode implantation on acute and chronic timescales, the electrical changes that occur in electrode systems over time, and strategies that are being investigated in order to minimize the tissue response to implantation and maximize functional electrode longevity. We also highlight the current and future clinical applications and relevance of electrode technology.

Indexed as

electrode degradationforeign body reactionglial encapsulationintracranial electrodes

Identifiers

PMID30424363
PMCPMC6187588

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.