Home › Research › Biomarkers
A systematic review and meta-analysis of CSF neurofilament protein levels as biomarkers in dementia
Petzold A, Keir G, Warren J, Fox N, Rossor MN.. Neuro-degenerative diseases, 2007-01-01
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
Plain-language summary
Background Loss of cortical neurons is a key pathological feature in neurodegenerative dementias. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) neurofilaments (Nf) are a biomarker for neuronal death and axonal loss. Objective To perform a meta-analysis to investigate the value of CSF Nf levels for the laboratory-supported differential diagnosis of neurodegenerative dementias. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on CSF Nf heavy (NfH) and light (NfL) levels in patients with dementia. The dementia subgroups analysed were Alzheimer (AD), frontotemporal lobe dementia (FTLD), vascular dementia (SVD), minimal cognitive deficit (MCI). Results We identified 12 studies on CSF NfH and NfL levels which met the inclusion criteria and 11 were of a quality good enough to be used in this meta-analysis. CSF data was available on 818 patients (306 AD, 106 SVD, 98 FTLD, 25 MCI, 283 controls). Overall CSF NfH and NfL levels were higher in patients with AD, FTLD and SVD when compared to controls. The size of the effect ranged from 0.71 to 1.38. The strongest effect was observed for the comparison of FTLD patients with controls, both for NfL (1.38) and NfH (0.74). CSF NfL were also able to separate patients with FTLD from those with AD. Conclusion At present we cannot recommend CSF NfH and NfL levels for use as a screening test in the diagnosis of dementia because of the rather small effect size. However, both neurofilament proteins may be of value for targeted investigation of some patients with FTLD, SVD and AD.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Petzold, A., Keir, G., Warren, J., Fox, N., & Rossor, M. N. (2007). A systematic review and meta-analysis of CSF neurofilament protein levels as biomarkers in dementia. Neuro-degenerative diseases. https://doi.org/10.1159/000101843
Vancouver
Petzold A, Keir G, Warren J, Fox N, Rossor MN. A systematic review and meta-analysis of CSF neurofilament protein levels as biomarkers in dementia. Neuro-degenerative diseases. 2007. doi:10.1159/000101843. PMID: 17596713.
BibTeX
@article{petzold2007-17596713,
author = {Petzold, A. and Keir, G. and Warren, J. and Fox, N. and Rossor, M. N.},
title = {{A systematic review and meta-analysis of CSF neurofilament protein levels as biomarkers in dementia}},
journal = {Neuro-degenerative diseases},
year = {2007},
doi = {10.1159/000101843},
pmid = {17596713},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1159/000101843}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results We identified 12 studies on CSF NfH and NfL levels which met the inclusion criteria and 11 were of a quality good enough to be used in this meta-analysis.
- Overall CSF NfH and NfL levels were higher in patients with AD, FTLD and SVD when compared to controls.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Study designsystematic review
- Participants818
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 72/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for effect reported because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 42 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 72 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neuro-degenerative diseases) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2007 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 818 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomization is not credited here |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 17596713) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 42 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 42 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 72 out of 100. |
| Total | 72 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.