Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33513968›Full record

ArticlePharmaceutics2021

Non-Invasive Low Pulsed Electrical Fields for Inducing BBB Disruption in Mice-Feasibility Demonstration.

Shirley Sharabi, David Last, Dianne Daniels, Ido Didi Fabian, Dana Atrakchi, Yael Bresler, Sigal Liraz-Zaltsman, Itzik Cooper, Yael Mardor

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmaceutics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07224451 (Liquid Biopsy Following Blood-Brain Barrier Disruption Using Barrier Disrupting Fields in Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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.

NCT07224451 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Liquid Biopsy Following Blood-Brain Barrier Disruption Using Barrier Disrupting Fields in Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery

TypeinterventionalSponsorSheba Medical CenterRan2025 to 2027Enrolled20ConditionsSpinal TumorsArmsspinal surgery, BDF
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Drug Design: Where We Are and Future Prospects.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Review
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Shirley SharabiThe Advanced Technology Center, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Ramat-Gan 5262000, Israel.ORCID 0000-0002-1561-7965
David LastThe Advanced Technology Center, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Ramat-Gan 5262000, Israel.
Dianne DanielsThe Advanced Technology Center, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Ramat-Gan 5262000, Israel.
Ido Didi FabianGoldschleger Eye Institute, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Ramat-Gan 5262000, Israel.ORCID 0000-0002-0846-5131
Dana AtrakchiThe Joseph Sagol Neuroscience Center, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Ramat Gan 52621, Israel.
Yael BreslerThe Advanced Technology Center, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Ramat-Gan 5262000, Israel.
Sigal Liraz-ZaltsmanThe Joseph Sagol Neuroscience Center, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Ramat Gan 52621, Israel.
Itzik CooperThe Joseph Sagol Neuroscience Center, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Ramat Gan 52621, Israel.
Yael MardorThe Advanced Technology Center, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Ramat-Gan 5262000, Israel.ORCID 0000-0002-8561-8875
Sheba Medical Center · ILTel Aviv University · ILHebrew University of Jerusalem · ILReichman University · IL

Funding

Israel Science foundation (ISF) 1922/18
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The blood-brain barrier (BBB) is a major hurdle for the treatment of central nervous system disorders, limiting passage of both small and large therapeutic agents from the blood stream into the brain. Thus, means for inducing BBB disruption (BBBd) are urgently needed. Here, we studied the application of low pulsed electrical fields (PEFs) for inducing BBBd in mice. Mice were treated by low PEFs using electrodes pressed against both sides of the skull (100-400 square 50 µs pulses at 4 Hz with different voltages). BBBd as a function of treatment parameters was evaluated using MRI-based treatment response assessment maps (TRAMs) and Evans blue extravasation. A 3D numerical model of the mouse brain and electrodes was constructed using finite element software, simulating the electric fields distribution in the brain and ensuring no significant temperature elevation. BBBd was demonstrated immediately after treatment and significant linear regressions were found between treatment parameters and the extent of BBBd. The maximal induced electric field in the mice brains, calculated by the numerical model, ranged between 62.4 and 187.2 V/cm for the minimal and maximal applied voltages. These results demonstrate the feasibility of inducing significant BBBd using non-invasive low PEFs, well below the threshold for electroporation.

Indexed as

blood–brain barrier disruptionMRIneurodegenerative diseasesnon-invasivepulsed electrical fieldstreatment response assessment maps

Identifiers

PMID33513968
PMCPMC7911365
OpenAlexW3123057026

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.