ReviewFrontiers in neurology2024
A rapid review of differences in cerebrospinal neurofilament light levels in clinical subtypes of progressive multiple sclerosis.
Review in Frontiers in neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- The role of Neurofilament light (NfL) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) in MS and AQP4-NMOSD: Advancing clinical applications.eNeurologicalSci · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is divided into three clinical phenotypes: relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), secondary progressive MS (SPMS), and primary progressive MS (PPMS). It is unknown to what extent SPMS and PPMS pathophysiology share inflammatory or neurodegenerative pathological processes. Cerebrospinal (CSF) neurofilament light (NfL) has been broadly studied in different MS phenotypes and is a candidate biomarker for comparing MS subtypes. Research question: Are CSF NfL levels different among clinical subtypes of progressive MS? Methods: A search strategy identifying original research investigating fluid neurodegenerative biomarkers in progressive forms of MS between 2010 and 2022 was applied to Medline. Identified articles underwent title and abstract screen and full text review against pre-specified criteria. Data abstraction was limited to studies that measured NfL levels in the CSF. Reported statistical comparisons of NfL levels between clinical phenotypes were abstracted qualitatively. Results: 18 studies that focused on investigating direct comparisons of CSF NfL from people with MS were included in the final report. We found NfL levels were typically reported to be higher in relapsing and progressive MS compared to healthy controls. Notably, higher NfL levels were not clearly associated with progressive MS subtypes when compared to relapsing MS, and there was no observed difference in NfL levels between PPMS and SPMS in articles that separately assessed these phenotypes. Conclusion: CSF NfL levels distinguish individuals with MS from healthy controls but do not differentiate MS subtypes. Broad biological phenotyping is needed to overcome limitations of current clinical phenotyping and improve biomarker translatability to decision-making in the clinic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.