Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40909760›Full record

ArticleMultiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinical

Relapse or no relapse in multiple sclerosis: Can disease activity biomarkers support the clinician?

Jeske van Pamelen, Marleen J A Koel-Simmelink, Birgit I Lissenberg, Edo P J Arnoldus, Janet de Beukelaar, Judith van Vliet, Joep Killestein, Charlotte E Teunissen, Leo H Visser

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Multiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinical. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Jeske van PamelenDepartment of Neurology, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2181-0195
Marleen J A Koel-SimmelinkNeurochemistry Laboratory, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3939-7394
Birgit I LissenbergDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9448-1826
Edo P J ArnoldusDepartment of Neurology, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5944-5931
Janet de BeukelaarDepartment of Neurology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-6089-9896
Judith van VlietDepartment of Neurology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-4043-4729
Joep KillesteinMS Center Amsterdam, Department of Neurology, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6347-5957
Charlotte E TeunissenNeurochemistry Laboratory, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4061-0837
Leo H VisserDepartment of Neurology, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0704-4538

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: In relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), the assessment of clinical disease activity can be challenging. Objectives: To determine the diagnostic potential of serum neurofilament light (sNfL) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (sGFAP) to distinguish a relapse from other causes of deterioration. Methods: In this multicenter, prospective study, RRMS patients with new neurological symptoms in the last 14 days were followed for 12 weeks. A diagnosis was established by the treating physician or, when in doubt, a panel of experienced neurologists. Blood samples were taken at baseline and week 12. Results: A total of 65 patients were included. At baseline, patients with a clear relapse had a significantly higher median sNfL (14.6 pg/mL) than those with a clear other cause (9.5 pg/mL, Conclusions: Analysis of sNfL level can be useful as an add-on investigation to determine whether disease activity is present in patients with RRMS presenting with new symptoms.

Indexed as

glial fibrillary acidic proteinneurofilament lightpseudo relapserelapseRelapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

Identifiers

PMID40909760
PMCPMC12405697

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.