ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2024
Multimodal diagnosis of cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhea: State of the art review and emerging concepts.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2024. 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.
- Expert Strategies: Skull Base Reconstruction-Global Perspectives, Insights, and Algorithms through a Mixed Methods Approach.International forum of allergy & rhinology · 2025Review
- Accurate Detection of Cerebrospinal Fluid by DNA Aptamers Derived by Clinical Samples.International forum of allergy & rhinology · 2025Article
- Multimodal diagnosis of cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhea: State of the art review and emerging concepts.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Currently, diagnosis of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) rhinorrhea relies on a multimodal approach, increasing costs and ultimately delaying diagnosis. In the United States and internationally, the crux of such a diagnosis relies on confirmation testing (via biomarkers) and localization (e.g., imaging). Biomarker testing may require analysis at an outside facility, resulting in delays diagnosis and treatment. In addition, specialized imaging may be nonspecific and often requires an active leak for diagnosis. There remains a clear need for innovative new technology. Methods: A comprehensive review was conducted on both foundational and innovative scholarly articles regarding current and emerging diagnosis modalities for CSF. Results: Current modalities in CSF rhinorrhea diagnosis and localization include laboratory tests (namely, B2T immunofixation), imaging (CT and/or MRI) with or without intrathecal administration, and surgical exploration. Each of these modalities carry flaws, risks, and benefits, ultimately contributing to delays in diagnosis and morbidity. Promising emerging technologies include lateral flow immunoassays (LFI) and biologically functionalized field-effect transistors (BioFET). Nevertheless, these carry some drawbacks of their own, and require further validation. Conclusion: CSF rhinorrhea remains a challenging diagnosis, requiring a multimodal approach to differentiate from nonpathologic causes of rhinorrhea. Current methods in diagnosis are imperfect, as the ideal test would be a readily accessible, inexpensive, rapid, highly accurate point-of-care test without the need for excess fluid or specialized processing. Critical work is being done to develop promising, new, improved tests, though a clear successor has not yet emerged. Level of Evidence: N/A.
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.