Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36389064›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in aging neuroscience2022

Neurofilaments contribution in clinic: state of the art.

Constance Delaby, Olivier Bousiges, Damien Bouvier, Catherine Fillée, Anthony Fourier, Etienne Mondésert, Nicolas Nezry, Souheil Omar, Isabelle Quadrio, Benoit Rucheton and 5 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Clinical use and reporting of neurofilament quantification in neurological disorders: A global overview.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

15 authors.

Constance DelabyUniversité de Montpellier, IRMB, INM, INSERM, CHU de Montpellier, Laboratoire Biochimie-Protéomique clinique, Montpellier, France.
Olivier BousigesLaboratoire de biochimie et biologie moléculaire (LBBM)-Pôle de biologie Hôpital de Hautepierre-CHU de Strasbourg, CNRS, laboratoire ICube UMR 7357 et FMTS (Fédération de Médecine Translationnelle de Strasbourg), équipe IMIS, Strasbourg, France.
Damien BouvierService de Biochimie et Génétique Moléculaire, CHU de Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Catherine FilléeCliniques universitaires Saint-Luc UCLouvain, Service de Biochimie Médicale, Brussels, Belgium.
Anthony FourierBiochimie et Biologie Moléculaire-LBMMS, Unité de diagnostic des pathologies dégénératives, Centre de Biologie et Pathologie Est, Groupement Hospitalier Est, Lyon, France.
Etienne MondésertUniversité de Montpellier, IRMB, INM, INSERM, CHU de Montpellier, Laboratoire Biochimie-Protéomique clinique, Montpellier, France.
Nicolas NezryUniv. Lille, Inserm, CHU Lille, UMR-S-U1172, LiCEND, Lille Neuroscience & Cognition, LabEx DISTALZ, Lille, France.
Souheil OmarLaboratoire de biologie médicale de l'Institut de Neurologie de Tunis, Tunis, Tunisia.
Isabelle QuadrioBiochimie et Biologie Moléculaire-LBMMS, Unité de diagnostic des pathologies dégénératives, Centre de Biologie et Pathologie Est, Groupement Hospitalier Est, Lyon, France.
Benoit RuchetonLaboratoire de Biologie, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France.
Susanna Schraen-MaschkeUniv. Lille, Inserm, CHU Lille, UMR-S-U1172, LiCEND, Lille Neuroscience & Cognition, LabEx DISTALZ, Lille, France.
Vincent van PeschCliniques universitaires Saint-Luc UCLouvain, Service de Neurologie, Brussels, Belgium.
Stéphanie ViccaHôpital Necker-Enfants malades, Paris, Laboratoire de Biochimie générale, DMU BioPhyGen, AP-HP.Centre-Université de Paris, Paris, France.
Sylvain LehmannUniversité de Montpellier, IRMB, INM, INSERM, CHU de Montpellier, Laboratoire Biochimie-Protéomique clinique, Montpellier, France.
Aurelie BedelService de Biochimie, CHU Pellegrin, Bordeaux, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neurological biomarkers are particularly valuable to clinicians as they can be used for diagnosis, prognosis, or response to treatment. This field of neurology has evolved considerably in recent years with the improvement of analytical methods, allowing the detection of biomarkers not only in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) but also in less invasive fluids like blood. These advances greatly facilitate the repeated quantification of biomarkers, including at asymptomatic stages of the disease. Among the various informative biomarkers of neurological disorders, neurofilaments (NfL) have proven to be of particular interest in many contexts, such as neurodegenerative diseases, traumatic brain injury, multiple sclerosis, stroke, and cancer. Here we discuss these different pathologies and the potential value of NfL assay in the management of these patients, both for diagnosis and prognosis. We also describe the added value of NfL compared to other biomarkers currently used to monitor the diseases described in this review.

Indexed as

biological fluidsbiomarkerscut-offneurofilamentneurological and neurodegenerative diseases

Identifiers

PMID36389064
PMCPMC9664201

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.