Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34223154›Full record

SynthesisBMJ neurology open2021

Correlation between CSF and blood neurofilament light chain protein: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jasmini Alagaratnam, Sophia von Widekind, Davide De Francesco, Jonathan Underwood, Paul Edison, Alan Winston, Henrik Zetterberg, Sarah Fidler

Open access · diamondAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ neurology open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
10.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

68 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 98 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Exercise Training and Biomarkers of Neuroaxonal Injury in Multiple Sclerosis: Narrative Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Review
  17. Observational
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article

8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Jasmini AlagaratnamDepartment of Infectious Disease, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2256-423X
Sophia von WidekindFaculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Davide De FrancescoInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
Jonathan UnderwoodDepartment of Infectious Disease, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Paul EdisonDepartment of Brain Sciences, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6551-2002
Alan WinstonDepartment of Infectious Disease, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Henrik ZetterbergDepartment of Neurodegenerative Disease, UCL Institute of Neurology, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3930-4354
Sarah FidlerDepartment of Infectious Disease, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · GBImperial College London · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/L00528X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the overall pooled correlation coefficient estimate between cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and blood neurofilament light (NfL) protein.

methodsWe searched Medline, Embase and Web of Science for published articles, from their inception to 9 July 2019, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Studies reporting the correlation between CSF and blood NfL in humans were included. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis to calculate the overall pooled correlation coefficient estimate, accounting for correlation technique and assay used. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I

resultsData were extracted from 36 articles, including 3961 paired CSF and blood NfL samples. Overall, 26/36 studies measured blood NfL using Simoa, 8/36 ECL, 1/36 ELISA and 1 study reported all three assay results. The overall meta-analysis demonstrated that the pooled correlation coefficient estimate for CSF and blood NfL was r=0.72. Heterogeneity was significant: I

conclusionModerate correlations are demonstrated between CSF and blood NfL, especially when blood NfL was measured using Simoa and ECL. Given its high analytical sensitivity, Simoa is the preferred assay for measuring NfL, especially at low or physiological concentrations, and this meta-analysis supports its use as the current most advanced surrogate measure of CSF NfL. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019140469.

Indexed as

clinical neurologyCSFCSF dynamicsneurobiologysystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID34223154
PMCPMC8211066
OpenAlexW3170817209

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.