SynthesisFrontiers in neurology
Is cognitive profiling in NF1 still optional? A systematic review of current assessment practices.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/objectives: Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) is a common genetic disorder often accompanied by cognitive, behavioral, and neurodevelopmental disorders. While tumor-related manifestations are well-documented, less attention has been paid to standardized assessment of neuropsychological profiles in affected children. This systematic review aimed to evaluate current assessment practices for cognitive, behavioral, and neurodevelopmental domains in pediatric NF1. Methods: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Embase databases (April 2015-April 2025) using predefined keywords and Boolean logic. Eligibility criteria included original studies assessing neurodevelopmental, cognitive, motor, behavioral, or social-emotional outcomes in pediatric NF1 populations (0-18 years). Exclusion criteria comprised adult-only samples, reviews, non-English publications, and animal models. Study selection followed PRISMA guidelines. Results: From 414 identified records, 84 studies met inclusion criteria. A total of 35 domains were explored, with cognitive functioning ( Conclusion: Current assessment practices in pediatric NF1 are heterogeneous and often neglect early developmental windows. The integration of standardized, age-appropriate tools and early neurodevelopmental screening-supported by interdisciplinary teams including neuropsychomotor therapists-may improve detection and management of NF1-related neurocognitive phenotypes. A shared framework for assessment is essential to enhance clinical care and research comparability. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251119558, identifier CRD420251119558.
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.