SynthesisBMJ open2026
Neurofilament light chain as a potential biomarker of perioperative neurocognitive disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2026. 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.
- Serum neurofilament light chain in hydrocephalus and surgical controls: baseline comparison and 24-hour perioperative dynamics under general anesthesia.Neurosurgical review · 2026Observational
- Biomarkers of perioperative neurocognitive disorders after cardiac surgery: from mechanistic insights to clinical translation.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAlthough neurofilament light chain (NfL) is used as a biomarker of neurodegenerative decline, its application in surgery- and anaesthesia-induced acute cognitive dysfunction remains uncertain. We aimed to synthesise existing evidence to evaluate the potential of NfL as a biomarker for perioperative neurocognitive disorder (PND).
designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library and the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials were systematically searched up to March 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Observational studies-including cohort, case-control and cross-sectional designs-were included if they reported cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) or blood NfL levels in individuals with and without PND. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Three independent reviewers assessed each article. Quality scoring was conducted, and the extracted data were analysed using STATA. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analytical model selection was guided by the I
resultsWithin-group analyses showed significant postoperative increases in blood NfL levels in both the postoperative delirium (POD) group (standardised mean difference (SMD) = 0.49; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.64) and the no-POD group (SMD=0.67, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81). Between-group comparisons revealed significantly higher preoperative CSF NfL levels in the POD group (SMD=0.27, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.47). Both preoperative and postoperative blood NfL levels were also significantly elevated in the POD group (SMD=0.53, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.66, and SMD=0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.73, respectively).
conclusionsThis meta-analysis suggests that NfL may be a potential biomarker for POD. Further research is needed to clarify the association between CSF and blood NfL levels and other forms of PND. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024516907.
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.