Diagnostic Value of Cerebrospinal… | 2019

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

69/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models

Plain-language summary

Importance Neurofilament light protein (NfL) is elevated in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of a number of neurological conditions compared with healthy controls (HC) and is a candidate biomarker for neuroaxonal damage. Results Data were collected for 10 059 individuals (mean [SD] age, 59.7 [18.8] years; 54.1% female). The cNfL was elevated compared with HC in a majority of neurological conditions studied. Conclusions and relevance These data support the use of cNfL as a biomarker of neuroaxonal damage and indicate that age-specific and sex-specific (and in some cases disease-specific) reference values may be needed.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Bridel, C., van Wieringen, W. N., Zetterberg, H., Tijms, B. M., Teunissen, C. E., the NFL Group, et al. (2019). Diagnostic Value of Cerebrospinal Fluid Neurofilament Light Protein in Neurology: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA neurology. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.1534

Vancouver

Bridel C, van Wieringen WN, Zetterberg H, Tijms BM, Teunissen CE, the NFL Group, et al. Diagnostic Value of Cerebrospinal Fluid Neurofilament Light Protein in Neurology: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA neurology. 2019. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.1534. PMID: 31206160.

BibTeX

@article{bridel2019-31206160,
  author  = {Bridel, C. and van Wieringen, W. N. and Zetterberg, H. and Tijms, B. M. and Teunissen, C. E. and {the NFL Group} and Alvarez-Cermeño, J. C. and Andreasson, U. and others},
  title   = {{Diagnostic Value of Cerebrospinal Fluid Neurofilament Light Protein in Neurology: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis}},
  journal = {JAMA neurology},
  year    = {2019},
  doi     = {10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.1534},
  pmid    = {31206160},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.1534}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: our record does not state a study design, so check the methods section of the original before weighing the result.
Size: the record lists 2,795 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
Effect: the record reports “54.1%; 33.3%”. A statistically significant result can still be small in daily life.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded moderate. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Moderate means the abstract mentions a cohort, case-control or longitudinal design. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Importance Neurofilament light protein (NfL) is elevated in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of a number of neurological conditions compared with healthy controls (HC) and is a candidate biomarker for neuroaxonal damage.
Results Data were collected for 10 059 individuals (mean [SD] age, 59.7 [18.8] years; 54.1% female).
The cNfL was elevated compared with HC in a majority of neurological conditions studied.
Conclusions and relevance These data support the use of cNfL as a biomarker of neuroaxonal damage and indicate that age-specific and sex-specific (and in some cases disease-specific) reference values may be needed.

Why it matters

This review of over 10,000 people found CSF neurofilament light elevated in many neurological conditions compared with healthy controls. It supports its use as a general marker of nerve damage and notes that age- and sex-specific reference values may be needed; it is not a treatment.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →

Study details

Participants2,795
Effect size54.1%; 33.3%
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 69/100

Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	9 / 10	Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (JAMA neurology)
Journal's citation record	2 / 4	JAMA Neurology: journal h-index 235 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	0 / 12	No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence	3 / 5	Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	2 / 5	2019 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	3 / 4	2,795 participants
Effect reported	2 / 3	Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people	3 / 3	Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	6 / 7	Cited 756 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	5 / 5	84.0 citations a year over 9 year(s) since 2019
Impact for its field and year	6 / 6	Cited 55.9× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	4 / 6	Cited by 44 other studies in this library
Still being cited	4 / 4	Cited 300 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	3 / 4	Last-listed author Edward J. Wild: h-index 53 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	2 / 3	University of Oxford: institution h-index 2,205 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration	3 / 3	OpenAlex lists 49 institution(s) in 15 countries
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 31206160)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Total	69 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — PubMed Central lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 10 Oct 2026).

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here. Showing 12 of 15.

Later studies that cite this one

44 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references. Showing the 8 highest-scoring.

Related studies in Biomarkers from nearby years

Also tagged “cerebrospinal”

820 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cerebrospinal”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 820 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

See all studies in Biomarkers →