Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38103086›Full record

SynthesisJournal of neurology2024

Analysis of biomarkers in speculative CNS-enriched extracellular vesicles for parkinsonian disorders: a comprehensive systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis.

Hash Brown Taha, Aleksander Bogoniewski

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Prosaposin in CNS health and disease, metabolic stress and exercise adaptation.Journal of molecular medicine (Berlin, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Fluid biomarkers in atypical Parkinsonism: current state and future perspectives.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2025
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hash Brown TahaDepartment of Integrative Biology and Physiology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. hashbrown@ucla.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-3056-8878
Aleksander BogoniewskiDepartment of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
University of California, Los Angeles · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveParkinsonian disorders, including Parkinson's disease (PD), multiple system atrophy (MSA), dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), and corticobasal syndrome (CBS), exhibit overlapping early-stage symptoms, complicating definitive diagnosis despite heterogeneous cellular and regional pathophysiology. Additionally, the progression and the eventual conversion of prodromal conditions such as REM behavior disorder (RBD) to PD, MSA, or DLB remain challenging to predict. Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are small, membrane-enclosed structures released by cells, playing a vital role in communicating cell-state-specific messages. Due to their ability to cross the blood-brain barrier into the peripheral circulation, measuring biomarkers in blood-isolated speculative CNS enriched EVs has become a popular diagnostic approach. However, replication and independent validation remain challenging in this field. Here, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of speculative CNS-enriched EVs for parkinsonian disorders.

methodsWe conducted a PRISMA-guided systematic review and meta-analysis, covering 18 studies with a total of 1695 patients with PD, 253 with MSA, 21 with DLB, 172 with PSP, 152 with CBS, 189 with RBD, and 1288 HCs, employing either hierarchical bivariate models or univariate models based on study size.

resultsDiagnostic accuracy was moderate for differentiating patients with PD from HCs, but revealed high heterogeneity and significant publication bias, suggesting an inflation of the perceived diagnostic effectiveness. The bias observed indicates that studies with non-significant or lower effect sizes were less likely to be published. Although results for differentiating patients with PD from those with MSA or PSP and CBS appeared promising, their validity is limited due to the small number of involved studies coming from the same research group. Despite initial reports, our analyses suggest that using speculative CNS-enriched EV biomarkers may not reliably differentiate patients with MSA from HCs or patients with RBD from HCs, due to their lesser accuracy and substantial variability among the studies, further complicated by substantial publication bias.

conclusionOur findings underscore the moderate, yet unreliable diagnostic accuracy of biomarkers in speculative CNS-enriched EVs in differentiating parkinsonian disorders, highlighting the presence of substantial heterogeneity and significant publication bias. These observations reinforce the need for larger, more standardized, and unbiased studies to validate the utility of these biomarkers but also call for the development of better biomarkers for parkinsonian disorders.

Indexed as

BiomarkersExtracellular VesiclesParkinsonian DisordersHumansBiomarkersAlpha-synucleinDiagnosisExosomeL1CAMMovement disordersParkinson’s disease

Identifiers

PMID38103086
PMCPMC10973014
OpenAlexW4389831990

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.