Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30465461›Full record

ArticleMultiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England)2019

Resting-state MEG measurement of functional activation as a biomarker for cognitive decline in MS.

Deborah N Schoonhoven, Matteo Fraschini, Prejaas Tewarie, Bernard Mj Uitdehaag, Anand Jc Eijlers, Jeroen Jg Geurts, Arjan Hillebrand, Menno M Schoonheim, Cornelis J Stam, Eva Mm Strijbis

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis: from phenomenology to neurobiological mechanisms.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Deborah N SchoonhovenDepartments of Neurology and Clinical Neurophysiology, Magnetoencephalography Center Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Matteo FraschiniDepartments of Neurology and Clinical Neurophysiology, Magnetoencephalography Center Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands/Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.
Prejaas TewarieDepartments of Neurology and Clinical Neurophysiology, Magnetoencephalography Center Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Bernard Mj UitdehaagDepartment of Neurology, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Anand Jc EijlersDepartment of Anatomy and Neurosciences, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jeroen Jg GeurtsDepartment of Anatomy and Neurosciences, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Arjan HillebrandDepartment of Clini cal Neurophysiology, Magnetoencephalography Center Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Menno M SchoonheimDepartment of Anatomy and Neurosciences, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2504-6959
Cornelis J StamDepartment of Clinical Neurophysiology, Magnetoencephalography Center Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Eva Mm StrijbisDepartments of Neurology and Clinical Neurophysiology, Magnetoencephalography Center Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NLAmsterdam Neuroscience · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLUniversity of Cagliari · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNeurophysiological measures of brain function, such as magnetoencephalography (MEG), are widely used in clinical neurology and have strong relations with cognitive impairment and dementia but are still underdeveloped in multiple sclerosis (MS).

objectivesTo demonstrate the value of clinically applicable MEG-measures in evaluating cognitive impairment in MS.

methodsIn eyes-closed resting-state, MEG data of 83 MS patients and 34 healthy controls (HCs) peak frequencies and relative power of six canonical frequency bands for 78 cortical and 10 deep gray matter (DGM) areas were calculated. Linear regression models, correcting for age, gender, and education, assessed the relation between cognitive performance and MEG biomarkers.

resultsIncreased alpha1 and theta power was strongly associated with impaired cognition in patients, which differed between cognitively impaired (CI) patients and HCs in bilateral parietotemporal cortices. CI patients had a lower peak frequency than HCs. Oscillatory slowing was also widespread in the DGM, most pronounced in the thalamus.

conclusionThere is a clinically relevant slowing of neuronal activity in MS patients in parietotemporal cortical areas and the thalamus, strongly related to cognitive impairment. These measures hold promise for the application of resting-state MEG as a biomarker for cognitive disturbances in MS in a clinical setting.

Indexed as

MagnetoencephalographyAdultBiomarkersBrainCognitive DysfunctionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMultiple SclerosisNeuropsychological TestsBiomarkerscognitionmagnetoencephalographyMultiple sclerosisoscillatory activitypower

Identifiers

PMID30465461
PMCPMC6875827
OpenAlexW2901559245

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.