Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39852933›Full record

ArticleVeterinary sciences2025

An Improved Method for Extracting Rat Cerebrospinal Fluid with Repeatable Large-Scale Collection.

Limei Wang, Wei Yang, Yanhong Ran, Hui Song, Xinxin Yan, Jianmin Guo

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Veterinary sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Limei WangGuangzhou Bay Area Institute of Biomedicine, Guangdong Lewwin Pharmaceutical Research Institute Co., Ltd., Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Drug Non-Clinical Evaluation and Research, TCM Non-Clinic Evaluation Branch of National Engineering Research Center for Modernization of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guangdong Engineering Research Center for Innovative Drug Evaluation and Research, Guangzhou 510990, China.
Wei YangGuangzhou Bay Area Institute of Biomedicine, Guangdong Lewwin Pharmaceutical Research Institute Co., Ltd., Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Drug Non-Clinical Evaluation and Research, TCM Non-Clinic Evaluation Branch of National Engineering Research Center for Modernization of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guangdong Engineering Research Center for Innovative Drug Evaluation and Research, Guangzhou 510990, China.
Yanhong RanGuangzhou Bay Area Institute of Biomedicine, Guangdong Lewwin Pharmaceutical Research Institute Co., Ltd., Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Drug Non-Clinical Evaluation and Research, TCM Non-Clinic Evaluation Branch of National Engineering Research Center for Modernization of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guangdong Engineering Research Center for Innovative Drug Evaluation and Research, Guangzhou 510990, China.
Hui SongGuangzhou Bay Area Institute of Biomedicine, Guangdong Lewwin Pharmaceutical Research Institute Co., Ltd., Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Drug Non-Clinical Evaluation and Research, TCM Non-Clinic Evaluation Branch of National Engineering Research Center for Modernization of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guangdong Engineering Research Center for Innovative Drug Evaluation and Research, Guangzhou 510990, China.
Xinxin YanGuangzhou Bay Area Institute of Biomedicine, Guangdong Lewwin Pharmaceutical Research Institute Co., Ltd., Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Drug Non-Clinical Evaluation and Research, TCM Non-Clinic Evaluation Branch of National Engineering Research Center for Modernization of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guangdong Engineering Research Center for Innovative Drug Evaluation and Research, Guangzhou 510990, China.
Jianmin GuoGuangzhou Bay Area Institute of Biomedicine, Guangdong Lewwin Pharmaceutical Research Institute Co., Ltd., Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Drug Non-Clinical Evaluation and Research, TCM Non-Clinic Evaluation Branch of National Engineering Research Center for Modernization of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guangdong Engineering Research Center for Innovative Drug Evaluation and Research, Guangzhou 510990, China.ORCID 0000-0003-3319-5580

Funding

Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Drug Non-Clinical Evaluation and Research 2023B1212070029
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to explore an improved method for extracting rat cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), observing the impact on animal health under conditions of large-scale CSF collection and evaluating the feasibility of repeated collections. A total of 20 rats were anesthetized and fixed in a stereotactic frame. A 26G scalp needle, combined with a 1 mL syringe, was used to puncture the atlanto-occipital membrane and collect approximately 170 μL of CSF. CSF was collected twice within 14 days. During the study, animals were monitored daily for food intake, body weight, and hematological parameters, and at the end of the study, histopathological examination was performed. The health of the animals remained good, and repeated CSF collections were feasible. The success rate of the procedure was 100%, with blood contamination in the CSF decreasing from 70% in the first collection to 35% in the second. This technique is convenient, accurate, and suitable for widespread applications.

Indexed as

cerebrospinal fluidlargescaleratrepeated collection

Identifiers

PMID39852933
PMCPMC11769370

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.