ArticleThe Journal of pediatrics2025
Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Cerebrospinal Fluid Flow Properties and Neurocognitive Outcomes in Congenital Heart Disease.
Article in The Journal of pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Variability in the circulation of cerebrospinal fluid: causes and clinical implications for intraventricular drug delivery.Frontiers in drug delivery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo determine whether there are differences in pulsatile cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) flow between children and adolescents with congenital heart disease (CHD) and healthy, age-matched peers, and to determine if abnormal CSF flow is associated with abnormal CSF volumes and whether it predicts executive function outcomes. STUDY
designCSF flow was measured across the lumen of the aqueduct of Sylvius using cardiac-gated phase-contrast MRI at 3.0 T on 60 children and adolescents (CHD = 22, healthy controls = 38). CSF flow modeled as standard pulsatility characteristics (anterograde and retrograde peak velocities, mean velocity, and velocity variance measurements) and dynamic pulsatility characteristics (each participant's CSF flow deviation from study cohort's consensus flow quantified using the root mean squared deviation) were measured. Participants underwent neurocognitive assessments for executive function, focused on inhibition, cognitive flexibility, and working memory domains.
resultsCompared with controls, the CHD group demonstrated greater dynamic pulsatility over the entire cardiac cycle (higher overall flow root mean squared deviation: P = .0353 for the study cohort fitted; P = .0292 for the control only fitted), but no difference in standard pulsatility measures. However, a lower mean velocity (P = .0323) and lower dynamic CSF flow pulsatility (root mean squared deviation P = .0181 for the study cohort fitted; P = .0149 for the control only fitted) predicted poor inhibitory executive functional outcomes. DISCUSSION: Although the whole CHD group exhibited higher dynamic CSF flow pulsatility compared with controls, the subset of patients with CHD with relatively reduced static and dynamic CSF flow pulsatility had the worst inhibitory domain executive functioning. These findings suggest that altered CSF flow pulsatility may be related to not only brain compensatory mechanisms, but also to cognitive impairment in CHD.
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.