ReviewFuture science OA2026
Intraosseous access in neurological emergencies: a critical narrative review and research framework.
Review in Future science OA, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Timely vascular access is critical in neurological emergencies, where delays in treatment may worsen secondary brain injury and functional outcomes. Intraosseous access offers a rapid alternative when intravenous cannulation is difficult, delayed, or unsuccessful, but its role in neurocritical care remains incompletely defined. PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Scopus were searched from inception through August 2025, with a targeted evidence update through 10 September 2026. This critical narrative review examines the feasibility, pharmacologic considerations, safety, evidence quality, and research gaps surrounding intraosseous access across acute ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, status epilepticus, traumatic brain injury, neurological infections, metabolic encephalopathy, pediatric neurological emergencies, and cardiac arrest as an indirect neurologic outcome model. Available evidence supports intraosseous access as a technically feasible emergency route in selected scenarios, particularly when vascular access delay may postpone time-sensitive therapy. However, most data are derived from case reports, animal pharmacokinetic studies, heterogeneous emergency cohorts, or extrapolation from resuscitation and trauma literature. Direct evidence demonstrating improved neurologic outcomes remains very limited and varies substantially by condition. Intravenous access should remain preferred when rapidly obtainable, while intraosseous access should be viewed as a temporary rescue bridge rather than a routine early intervention. Prospective condition-specific studies are needed to evaluate drug delivery, timing, insertion site, complications, workflow integration, and meaningful neurologic outcomes before neuro-focused intraosseous protocols can be broadly recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.