ReviewBiology2024
Breaking Barriers: Unveiling Sex-Related Differences in Cerebrospinal Fluid Analysis-A Narrative Review.
Review in Biology, 2024. 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.
- Beyond oligoclonal bands: the independent role of kappa free light chains in the diagnostic workup of multiple sclerosis.Journal of neurology · 2026Article
- Sex-related differences and associated transcriptional signatures in the brain ventricular system and cerebrospinal fluid development in full-term neonates.Biology of sex differences · 2025Article
- Exploring Sex-Related Difference in Cerebrospinal Fluid/Blood Quotient of Albumin in Older Patients Undergoing Hip Fracture Surgery: Insight From the ORTODEL and BIODEL Study.Biomarker insights · 2025Article
- Impact of sex differences on clinical characteristics of anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor encephalitis during the acute phase: a single-center retrospective study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- Kappa Free Light Chains in Multiple Sclerosis as a Marker of Intrathecal Humoral Response: A Sex-Disaggregated Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Clinical characteristics of MOG antibody-positive anti-NMDAR encephalitis: a single-center retrospective study.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
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
Abstract
(1) Background: The recent emphasis on sexual and gender diversity's impact on human health underscores the need for tailored diagnostic and therapeutic approaches in neurology. The aim of this article is to conduct a narrative review of the available scientific literature on sex differences in cerebrospinal fluid analysis. (2) Methods: The literature search encompassed PubMed databases, focusing on cerebrospinal fluid analysis and sex differences, considering parameters like cerebrospinal fluid protein content, cell count, albumin quotient (QAlb) and intrathecal IgG synthesis. (3) Results: Nine articles from the past two decades were identified, revealing limited research in this area. Males consistently exhibited higher cerebrospinal fluid protein content and albumin quotient values across various pathologies and age groups. Consequently, males more frequently manifested blood-cerebrospinal fluid barrier dysfunction than females. No significant sex differences were observed in cerebrospinal fluid leukocyte count or intrathecal IgG synthesis. (4) Conclusions: This review highlights the dearth of research on sex differences in cerebrospinal fluid analysis, despite consistent findings of higher protein content and albumin quotient values in males. Revisiting current diagnostic thresholds based on sex is crucial for accurate prognosis and personalised treatment strategies in neurological disorders. Moving towards sex-specific approaches in clinical practice is imperative for advancing personalised medicine.
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.