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.

72/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models

Plain-language summary

Introduction A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed regarding the diagnostic performance of neurofilament light chain (NfL) in CSF and blood. Methods A database search was conducted for NfL biomarker studies in the context of Alzheimer's disease (AD), frontotemporal dementia (FTD), and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) compared with controls (i.e., cognitively unimpaired, mild cognitive impairment, or disease mimics). Results In groups with a sufficient number of studies, the performance of NfL in blood and CSF was similar. Compared with disease mimics, we observed that CSF NfL had strong discriminatory power for ALS, modest discriminatory power for FTD, and no discriminatory power for AD. NfL provided the greatest separation between ALS and cognitively unimpaired controls in both the blood and CSF, followed by FTD (CSF and blood), then AD (blood and CSF). Discussion Comparable performance of CSF and blood NfL in many groups demonstrates the promise of NfL as a noninvasive biomarker of neurodegeneration; however, its utility in clinically meaningful scenarios requires greater scrutiny. Toward clinical implementation, a more comprehensive understanding of NfL concentrations in disease subtypes with overlapping phenotypes and at defined stages of disease, and the development of a harmonization program, are warranted.

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

APA 7th

Forgrave, L. M., Ma, M., Best, JR., & DeMarco, M. L. (2019). The diagnostic performance of neurofilament light chain in CSF and blood for Alzheimer's disease, frontotemporal dementia, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dadm.2019.08.009

Vancouver

Forgrave LM, Ma M, Best JR, DeMarco ML. The diagnostic performance of neurofilament light chain in CSF and blood for Alzheimer's disease, frontotemporal dementia, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2019. doi:10.1016/j.dadm.2019.08.009. PMID: 31909174.

BibTeX

@article{forgrave2019-31909174,
  author  = {Forgrave, L. M. and Ma, M. and Best, JR. and DeMarco, M. L.},
  title   = {{The diagnostic performance of neurofilament light chain in CSF and blood for Alzheimer's disease, frontotemporal dementia, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis}},
  journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)},
  year    = {2019},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.dadm.2019.08.009},
  pmid    = {31909174},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dadm.2019.08.009}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: this is a pooled review. It combines earlier studies, so it is only as good as the studies it pools. Check how many were included, whether they were similar enough to combine, and whether the authors report inconsistency between them.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded high. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. High means the abstract mentions a randomized design, a meta-analysis or a systematic review. 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

Methods A database search was conducted for NfL biomarker studies in the context of Alzheimer's disease (AD), frontotemporal dementia (FTD), and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) compared with controls (i.e., cognitively unimpaired, mild cognitive impairment, or disease mimics).
Results In groups with a sufficient number of studies, the performance of NfL in blood and CSF was similar.
Compared with disease mimics, we observed that CSF NfL had strong discriminatory power for ALS, modest discriminatory power for FTD, and no discriminatory power for AD.

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

Study details

Study designsystematic review
Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 72/100

Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. 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 42 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 72 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	9 / 10	Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands))
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	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 31909174)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
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.

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

Related studies in Biomarkers from nearby years

Also tagged “light-chain”

3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “light-chain”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

See all studies in Biomarkers →