ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2023
Cerebrospinal fluid flushing as a means of neuroprotection.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Brain Lymphatic Dysfunction in Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: Pathophysiology and Clinical Implications.Biomolecules · 2026Review
- Reassessing the Role of the Subarcuate Artery in Hearing Preservation during Microvascular Decompression.Neurologia medico-chirurgica · 2025Article
- Cerebrospinal Fluid Flow Enhancement (CFE) Increases the Spatial Distribution of Methotrexate after Intracerebroventricular Administration in a Sheep Model.Molecular pharmaceutics · 2025Article
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
Central nervous system (CNS) injury or disease states are often difficult to treat due to the closed system of the dura mater/blood-brain barrier and the bony skull and vertebrae. The closed system results in at least partial containment of any pro-inflammatory molecules, pathogens, or toxic byproducts in the case of brain or spinal cord lesions, which can result in a destructive feedback loop. Cervical-approach access techniques (lateral C1-C2, suboccipital and lateral atlanto-occipital space punctures) are less-common methods of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) sampling due to the relative ease and safety of lumbar spinal taps. However, with improved image-guidance, these cervical-level CSF access points are still useful when there are certain contraindications and difficulties when attempting to sample the CSF via the typical lumbar spinal approach. With the advent of microcatheters and minimally invasive techniques, combined with body fluid filtration technology, the question arises: could dual microcatheters be introduced for inflow and outflow of purified or artificial CSF to break the destructive feedback loop and thus diminish CNS damage?. We hypothesize that intrathecal spinal catheters could be placed in 2 positions (e.g., via a cervical route and the typical lumbar spinal route) to allow for both an input and output to more effectively filter or "flush" the CSF. This could have broad implications in the treatment of strokes, traumatic brain or spinal cord injury, infections, autoimmune diseases, and even malignancies within the CNS-in short, any disease with abnormalities detectable in the CSF.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.