Cited by 58Cerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalusClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlBacterial Infections and Vaccines

A modern approach to CSF analysis: Pathophysiology, clinical application, proof of concept and laboratory reporting

Regeniter, Axel, Kuhle, Jens, Mehling, Matthias, Möller, Helgard, Wurster, Ulrich, Freidank, Heike, Siede, Werner H.·2009·Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery

Abstract

The CNS immune response often leads to characteristic interrelated biochemical changes in cerebrospinal fluid. Multiple analytes, i.e. cell count, cell differential, evaluation of barrier function and intrathecal IgG, IgA and IgM synthesis should be included in basic diagnostic workup. We describe the scientific background, laboratory investigations and characteristic patterns found with basic CSF analysis, based on the recommendations of the German cerebrospinal fluid society. The concept is substantiated by retrospectively analyzing data of 4026 paired CSF/serum samples. 53% of our samples presented with at least one or several combined abnormal findings. An intrathecal IgG, IgA or IgM immunoglobulin response (37%, n=1481) and a blood-CSF barrier dysfunction (37%; n=1473) were most frequent; followed by an elevated leukocyte cell count (25%; n=992). The immunoglobulin response showed an intrathecal production of IgG in 49% (n=731/1481), which was only detectable in isoelectric focusing in 27% (n=200/731). Intrathecal IgM (n=389) and IgA (n=361) synthesis presented with nearly equal frequency of 25% in samples with intrathecal immunoglobulin response. The immunoglobulin pattern showed a solitary one class reaction of IgG, IgA or IgM in 67%, a combined two class reaction of IgG/IgA, IgG/IgM or IgA/IgM synthesis in 16% and a combined three-class reaction of IgG, IgA and IgM in 17%. This approach generates valuable but numerous complex and interrelated biochemical data. We ther…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.clineuro.2008.12.004

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Regeniter, A., Kuhle, J., Mehling, M., Möller, H., Wurster, U., Freidank, H., & Siede, W. H.
Affiliations
  • University Hospital of Basel (CH)
  • Klinikum Lippe (DE)
  • Medizinische Hochschule Hannover (DE)
Corresponding author
Regeniter, Axel
Venue
Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-05
Volume
111
Issue
4
Pages
313-318
ISSN
0303-8467 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2080092784
Cited by
58
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 7 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
FWCI
0.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Cerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Bacterial Infections and Vaccines
Keywords
cerebrospinal fluid analysis, intrathecal immunoglobulin synthesis, intrathecal IgG, blood-CSF barrier dysfunction, isoelectric focusing, expert systems, laboratory reporting, CNS immune response, neurological disease diagnosis
MeSH terms
Germany, Humans, Immunoglobulin A, Immunoglobulin G, Immunoglobulin M, Leukocyte Count, Nervous System Diseases, Clinical Laboratory Techniques

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review