Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31963750›Full record

ReviewBrain sciences2020

Neurofilaments: The C-Reactive Protein of Neurology.

Kate L Lambertsen, Catarina B Soares, David Gaist, Helle H Nielsen

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Brain sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kate L LambertsenDepartment of Neurology, Odense University Hospital, J.B. Winsloewsvej 4, 5000 Odense C, Denmark.
Catarina B SoaresDepartment of Neurology, Odense University Hospital, J.B. Winsloewsvej 4, 5000 Odense C, Denmark.
David GaistDepartment of Neurology, Odense University Hospital, J.B. Winsloewsvej 4, 5000 Odense C, Denmark.
Helle H NielsenDepartment of Neurology, Odense University Hospital, J.B. Winsloewsvej 4, 5000 Odense C, Denmark.
University of Southern Denmark · DK

Funding

Sundhed og Sygdom, Det Frie Forskningsråd DFF-4183-00033
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neurofilaments (NFs) are quickly becoming the biomarkers of choice in the field of neurology, suggesting their use as an unspecific screening marker, much like the use of elevated plasma C-reactive protein (CRP) in other fields. With sensitive techniques being readily available, evidence is growing regarding the diagnostic and prognostic value of NFs in many neurological disorders. Here, we review the latest literature on the structure and function of NFs and report the strengths and pitfalls of NFs as markers of neurodegeneration in the context of neurological diseases of the central and peripheral nervous systems.

Indexed as

biomarkerbloodneuroaxonal damageplasmaserum

Identifiers

PMID31963750
PMCPMC7016784
OpenAlexW3000373941

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.