ReviewAdvances and technical standards in neurosurgery2022
Convection-Enhanced Delivery in Children: Techniques and Applications.
Review in Advances and technical standards in neurosurgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Drug resistant epilepsy driven byEpilepsy & behavior reports · 2026Article
- Overcoming the blood-brain barrier (BBB) in pediatric CNS tumors: immunotherapy and nanomedicine-driven strategies.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2025Review
- Regenerative Glycopeptide Scaffolds Enhance BMP-4 Activity To Treat Pediatric Glioma.Regenerative engineering and translational medicine · 2025Article
- Stem cell therapies for neurological disorders: current progress, challenges, and future perspectives.European journal of medical research · 2024Review
- The Spectrum of Molecular Pathways in Gliomas-An Up-to-Date Review.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- Evaluating preclinical evidence for clinical translation in childhood brain tumours: Guidelines from the CONNECT, PNOC, and ITCC brain networks.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since its first description in 1994, convection-enhanced delivery (CED) has become a reliable method of administering drugs directly into the brain parenchyma. More predictable and effective than simple diffusion, CED bypasses the challenging boundary of the blood brain barrier, which has frustrated many attempts at delivering large molecules or polymers into the brain parenchyma. Although most of the clinical work with CED has been carried out on adults with incurable neoplasms, principally glioblastoma multiforme, an increasing number of studies have recognized its potential for paediatric applications, which now include treatment of currently incurable brain tumours such as diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG), as well as metabolic and neurotransmitter diseases. The roadmap for the development of hardware and use of pharmacological agents in CED has been well-established, and some neurosurgical centres throughout the world have successfully undertaken clinical trials, admittedly mostly early phase, on the basis of in vitro, small animal and large animal pre-clinical foundations. However, the clinical efficacy of CED, although theoretically logical, has yet to be unequivocally demonstrated in a clinical trial; this applies particularly to neuro-oncology.This review aims to provide a broad description of the current knowledge of CED as applied to children. It reviews published studies of paediatric CED in the context of its wider history and developments and underlines the challenges related to the development of hardware, the selection of pharmacological agents, and gene therapy. It also reviews the difficulties related to the development of clinical trials involving CED and looks towards its potential disease-modifying opportunities in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35976451What OpenQuestion holds
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.