Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35115036›Full record

ReviewFluids and barriers of the CNS2022

The glymphatic hypothesis: the theory and the evidence.

Stephen B Hladky, Margery A Barrand

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Fluids and barriers of the CNS, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 135 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
135citing papers in PubMed
22.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

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

135 citing papers in PubMed, 230 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Quantitative assessment of flow between cerebrospinal and interstitial fluid compartments in humans.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. The glymphatic system and glioblastoma.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2026
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Stretch and flow at the gliovascular interface: High-fidelity modeling of astrocyte endfeet.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

75 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stephen B HladkyDepartment of Pharmacology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 1PD, UK. sbh1@cam.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3815-7225
Margery A BarrandDepartment of Pharmacology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 1PD, UK.
University of Cambridge · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The glymphatic hypothesis proposes a mechanism for extravascular transport into and out of the brain of hydrophilic solutes unable to cross the blood-brain barrier. It suggests that there is a circulation of fluid carrying solutes inwards via periarterial routes, through the interstitium and outwards via perivenous routes. This review critically analyses the evidence surrounding the mechanisms involved in each of these stages. There is good evidence that both influx and efflux of solutes occur along periarterial routes but no evidence that the principal route of outflow is perivenous. Furthermore, periarterial inflow of fluid is unlikely to be adequate to provide the outflow that would be needed to account for solute efflux. A tenet of the hypothesis is that flow sweeps solutes through the parenchyma. However, the velocity of any possible circulatory flow within the interstitium is too small compared to diffusion to provide effective solute movement. By comparison the earlier classical hypothesis describing extravascular transport proposed fluid entry into the parenchyma across the blood-brain barrier, solute movements within the parenchyma by diffusion, and solute efflux partly by diffusion near brain surfaces and partly carried by flow along "preferred routes" including perivascular spaces, white matter tracts and subependymal spaces. It did not suggest fluid entry via periarterial routes. Evidence is still incomplete concerning the routes and fate of solutes leaving the brain. A large proportion of the solutes eliminated from the parenchyma go to lymph nodes before reaching blood but the proportions delivered directly to lymph or indirectly via CSF which then enters lymph are as yet unclear. In addition, still not understood is why and how the absence of AQP4 which is normally highly expressed on glial endfeet lining periarterial and perivenous routes reduces rates of solute elimination from the parenchyma and of solute delivery to it from remote sites of injection. Neither the glymphatic hypothesis nor the earlier classical hypothesis adequately explain how solutes and fluid move into, through and out of the brain parenchyma. Features of a more complete description are discussed. All aspects of extravascular transport require further study.

Indexed as

Biological TransportAnimalsGlymphatic SystemHumansAquaporin 4Blood–brain barrierBulk flowCerebrospinalDiffusionExtravascular transportFluid circulationGlymphaticHydrophilic soluteInterstitialPeriarterialPerivascularPerivenousSubependymal space

Identifiers

PMID35115036
PMCPMC8815211
OpenAlexW4210509622

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.