Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39420574›Full record

ArticleMultiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England)2024

Impact of serum neurofilament light on clinical decisions in a tertiary multiple sclerosis clinic.

Zoë Ygj van Lierop, Mark Hj Wessels, Womei Ml Lekranty, Bastiaan Moraal, Sam N Hof, Laura Hogenboom, Brigit A de Jong, Nandi Meijs, Liselore A Mensing, Bob W van Oosten and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A framework for blood biomarker discovery in MS.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  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
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

18 authors.

Zoë Ygj van LieropDepartment of Neurology, Amsterdam UMC (Location VUmc), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, MS Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3200-8966
Mark Hj WesselsDepartment of Neurology, Amsterdam UMC (Location VUmc), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, MS Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2324-0499
Womei Ml LekrantyDepartment of Neurology, Amsterdam UMC (Location VUmc), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, MS Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Bastiaan MoraalDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, MS Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Sam N HofDepartment of Neurology, Amsterdam UMC (Location VUmc), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, MS Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0453-6449
Laura HogenboomDepartment of Neurology, Amsterdam UMC (Location VUmc), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, MS Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0005-1230-1366
Brigit A de JongDepartment of Neurology, Amsterdam UMC (Location VUmc), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, MS Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Nandi MeijsDepartment of Neurology, Zuyderland Hospital, Sittard-Geleen, The Netherlands.
Liselore A MensingDepartment of Neurology, Spaarne Gasthuis, Haarlem, The Netherlands.
Bob W van OostenDepartment of Neurology, Amsterdam UMC (Location VUmc), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, MS Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Nik SolDepartment of Neuro-Oncology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Zoé LE van KempenDepartment of Neurology, Amsterdam UMC (Location VUmc), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, MS Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9557-5381
Lisa VermuntNeurochemistry Laboratory, Department of Clinical Chemistry, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Myrthe J WillemsDepartment of Neurology, Diakonessenhuis, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Eva Mm StrijbisDepartment of Neurology, Amsterdam UMC (Location VUmc), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, MS Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6705-5864
Bernard Mj UitdehaagDepartment of Neurology, Amsterdam UMC (Location VUmc), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, MS Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Joep KillesteinDepartment of Neurology, Amsterdam UMC (Location VUmc), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, MS Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Charlotte E TeunissenNeurochemistry Laboratory, Department of Clinical Chemistry, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesSerum neurofilament light (sNfL) is a biomarker for neuro-axonal damage in multiple sclerosis (MS). Clinical implementation remains limited. We investigated the impact of implementation on clinical decisions using questionnaires at the MS Center Amsterdam, a tertiary outpatient clinic.

methodssNfL assessments were added to routine clinical practice (August 2021-December 2022). Before and after the results, clinicians filled in questionnaires on context of testing, clinical decisions, certainty herein, expectation of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) activity, urgency, and motivation to receive the sNfL result and perceived value of sNfL.

resultssNfL was assessed in 166 cases (age 41 ± 12 years, 68% female, 64% disease-modifying therapy (DMT) use) for the following contexts: "DMT monitoring" (55%), "new symptoms" (18%), "differential diagnosis" (17%), and "DMT baseline" (11%). Clinical decisions changed in 19.3% of cases post-disclosure, particularly in context "new symptoms" (38%) and with higher sNfL levels (β = 0.03,

conclusionIn this study, sNfL implementation had considerable impact on clinical decision-making and certainty herein. Standard implementation may complement patient care but warrants caution and more exploration in diverse clinical settings.

Indexed as

BiomarkersMultiple SclerosisNeurofilament ProteinsAdultClinical Decision-MakingFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedTertiary Care CentersBiomarkersneurofilament protein LNeurofilament ProteinsbiomarkersMultiple sclerosis

Identifiers

PMID39420574
PMCPMC11568682

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.