Home › Research › Biomarkers
Neurofilament light chain protein in neurodegenerative dementia: A systematic review and network meta-analysis
Zhao Y, Xin Y, Meng S, He Z, Hu W.. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews, 2019-04-24
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
The diagnostic value of neurofilament light chain protein in neurodegenerative dementia diseases is still controversial. A systematic literature search was performed to identify relevant case-control studies conducted through October 2018. Traditional and net meta-analyses were performed based on 42 studies that tested the diagnostic performance of neurofilament light chain protein (NfL) concentration in CSF and serum/plasma from patients with neurodegenerative dementia. CSF and serum/plasma NfL levels were significantly increased in patients with neurodegenerative dementia diseases. Network meta-analysis showed a significant reduction in CSF NfL levels during mild cognitive impairment, whereas an increase was observed in vascular dementia compared to Alzheimer's disease. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve and cluster analysis showed that the NfL concentration in CSF (vascular dementia, frontotemporal dementia, and Alzheimer's disease) and serum/plasma (frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer's disease) ranked first among neurodegenerative dementia diseases. NfL is an important biomarker that can help clinical neurologists make early diagnoses of neurodegenerative diseases, so patients can receive prompt treatment.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Zhao, Y., Xin, Y., Meng, S., He, Z., & Hu, W. (2019). Neurofilament light chain protein in neurodegenerative dementia: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.04.014
Vancouver
Zhao Y, Xin Y, Meng S, He Z, Hu W. Neurofilament light chain protein in neurodegenerative dementia: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews. 2019. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.04.014. PMID: 31026486.
BibTeX
@article{zhao2019-31026486,
author = {Zhao, Y. and Xin, Y. and Meng, S. and He, Z. and Hu, W.},
title = {{Neurofilament light chain protein in neurodegenerative dementia: A systematic review and network meta-analysis}},
journal = {Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.04.014},
pmid = {31026486},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.04.014}
}
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
- CSF and serum/plasma NfL levels were significantly increased in patients with neurodegenerative dementia diseases.
- Network meta-analysis showed a significant reduction in CSF NfL levels during mild cognitive impairment, whereas an increase was observed in vascular dementia compared to Alzheimer's disease.
- Surface under the cumulative ranking curve and cluster analysis showed that the NfL concentration in CSF (vascular dementia, frontotemporal dementia, and Alzheimer's disease) and serum/plasma (frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer's disease) ranked first among neurodegenerative dementia diseases.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Study designmeta-analysis
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 66/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people 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 38 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 66 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A meta-analysis pooling many studies |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2019 — 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 | 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 31026486) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 38 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 38 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 66 out of 100. |
| Total | 66 / 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.