ReviewNeurology. Clinical practice2026
Defining Relapse and Disease Activity in Neurosarcoidosis: A Systematic Review and Proposed Framework.
Review in Neurology. Clinical practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose of Review: There is no consensus or standardized framework to characterize disease activity in CNS neurosarcoidosis, and the existing literature is highly heterogeneous. Here, we aimed to aggregate all longitudinal monitoring metrics in neurosarcoidosis through a systematic review. The review protocol is registered in PROSPERO (ID:533857). Articles were included if they incorporated at least 1 longitudinal monitoring or outcome metric relevant to neurosarcoidosis disease activity. In addition, we aimed to establish an evidence-based clinical framework for characterizing, monitoring, and communicating neurosarcoidosis disease activity, applicable to both clinical care and research. Recent Findings: Of 387 articles initially identified, 67 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies focused on metrics within a single domain (clinical, imaging, or laboratory) or analyzed multiple domains independently. Often, the definitions were not formally outlined. Only 11 studies included a multidomain monitoring metric. Our proposed framework integrates 3 critical domains for assessing the neurosarcoidosis disease activity: (1) clinical, (2) imaging, and (3) laboratory and supports a standardized characterization of the disease, especially when domain results are discordant. The overarching goal in defining the elements of each domain was to prioritize specificity in attributing activity to neurosarcoidosis while minimizing the risk of misattribution. Each domain includes criteria for 4 categories of disease status: "improved," "stable," "worsened," or "resolved." The overall disease status of activity or inactivity is then determined by reconciling the independent domains into a summary disease activity assessment, communicated with additional clinical context, including immune treatment status and neuroanatomic localization. Sustained clinical stability of persistent neurologic symptoms or signs in the absence of MRI or CSF activity is considered in the summary assessment to reflect inactive disease with sustained neurologic deficits. Summary: A systematic review highlighted substantial heterogeneity in how CNS neurosarcoidosis disease activity is measured, with many studies lacking formal definitions and often reporting activity only within isolated domains. This proposed framework integrates multiple domains to comprehensively characterize CNS neurosarcoidosis disease activity. With further validation, this approach has the potential to standardize research practices and improve clinical reasoning and communication.
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.