Home › Research › Tau biomarkers
Alzheimer disease: CSF biomarkers for Alzheimer disease - approaching consensus
Douglas R Galasko, Leslie M Shaw. Nature reviews. Neurology, 2017-02-03
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Plain-language summary
A European working group has provided a new set of recommendations for the use of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers in the diagnostic evaluation of Alzheimer disease and mild cognitive impairment. These recommendations represent an important step towards the implementation of CSF biomarker tests in the clinic, but several challenges remain.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Galasko, D. R., & Shaw, L. M. (2017). Alzheimer disease: CSF biomarkers for Alzheimer disease - approaching consensus. Nature reviews. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2017.11
Vancouver
Galasko DR, Shaw LM. Alzheimer disease: CSF biomarkers for Alzheimer disease - approaching consensus. Nature reviews. Neurology. 2017. doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2017.11. PMID: 28155892.
BibTeX
@article{galasko2017-28155892,
author = {Galasko, Douglas R and Shaw, Leslie M},
title = {{Alzheimer disease: CSF biomarkers for Alzheimer disease - approaching consensus}},
journal = {Nature reviews. Neurology},
year = {2017},
doi = {10.1038/nrneurol.2017.11},
pmid = {28155892},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2017.11}
}
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
- A European working group has provided a new set of recommendations for the use of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers in the diagnostic evaluation of Alzheimer disease and mild cognitive impairment.
- These recommendations represent an important step towards the implementation of CSF biomarker tests in the clinic, but several challenges remain.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 39/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded 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, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 22 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 39 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Nature reviews. Neurology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2017 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 28155892) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 22 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 39 out of 100. |
| Total | 39 / 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.
Related studies in Tau biomarkers from nearby years
Also tagged “p-tau217”
692 studies in the library carry the topic tag “p-tau217”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 692 tagged studies.