Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32447549›Full record

SynthesisJournal of neurology2021

Neurofilaments in progressive multiple sclerosis: a systematic review.

Thomas Williams, Henrik Zetterberg, Jeremy Chataway

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of neurology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Profiling the Cerebrospinal Fluid Proteome in Progressive Multiple Sclerosis: Treatment Effects and Associations with IgM Oligoclonal Bands.Journal of neuroimmune pharmacology : the official journal of the Society on NeuroImmune Pharmacology · 2025
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Neurofilament heavy chain in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2025
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Thomas WilliamsDepartment of Neuroinflammation, Faculty of Brain Sciences, Queen Square Multiple Sclerosis Centre, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK. Thomas.williams@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8197-0177
Henrik ZetterbergDepartment of Neurodegenerative Disease, Faculty of Brain Sciences, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4671-6763
Jeremy ChatawayDepartment of Neuroinflammation, Faculty of Brain Sciences, Queen Square Multiple Sclerosis Centre, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7286-6901
Queen Mary University of London · GBSahlgrenska University Hospital · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNeurofilament proteins have been extensively studied in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, where they are promising biomarkers of disease activity and treatment response. Their role in progressive multiple sclerosis, where there is a particularly urgent need for improved biomarkers, is less clear. The objectives of this systematic review are to summarise the literature on neurofilament light and heavy in progressive multiple sclerosis, addressing key questions.

methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus identified 355 potential sources. 76 relevant sources were qualitatively reviewed using QUADAS-2 criteria, and 17 were identified as at low risk of bias. We summarise the findings from all relevant sources, and separately from the 17 high-quality studies.

resultsDifferences in neurofilament light between relapsing-remitting and progressive multiple sclerosis appear to be explained by differences in covariates. Neurofilament light is consistently associated with current inflammatory activity and future brain atrophy in progressive multiple sclerosis, and is consistently shown to be a marker of treatment response with immunosuppressive disease-modifying therapies. Associations with current or future disability are inconsistent, and there is no evidence of NFL being a responsive marker of purportedly neuroprotective treatments. Evidence on neurofilament heavy is more limited and inconsistent.

conclusionsNeurofilament light has shown consistent utility as a biomarker of neuroinflammation, future brain atrophy and immunosuppressive treatment response at a group level. Neither neurofilament light or heavy has shown a consistent treatment response to neuroprotective disease-modifying therapies, which will require further data from successful randomised controlled trials.

Indexed as

Multiple SclerosisMultiple Sclerosis, Chronic ProgressiveMultiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-RemittingBiomarkersHumansIntermediate FilamentsNeurofilament ProteinsBiomarkersNeurofilament ProteinsBiomarkersMultiple sclerosisNeurofilament heavy chain (NFH)Neurofilament light chain (NFL)Progressive multiple sclerosis

Identifiers

PMID32447549
PMCPMC8357650
OpenAlexW3026936125

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.