↓ Skip to main content

Neurofilaments in CSF As Diagnostic Biomarkers in Motor Neuron Disease: A Meta-Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Neurofilaments in CSF As Diagnostic Biomarkers in Motor Neuron Disease: A Meta-Analysis
Published in
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, November 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnagi.2016.00290
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dawei Li, Dongchao Shen, Hongfei Tai, Liying Cui

Abstract

Objective: Neurofilaments in CSF are promising biomarkers which might help in the diagnosis of motor neuron disease (MND). We aim to assess the diagnostic value of neurofilaments in CSF for MND. Methods: Pubmed, Emabase, and Web of Science were searched for relevant studies systematically. Articles in English that evaluated the utility of neurofilaments in CSF in the diagnosis of MND were included. Data were extracted by two independent investigators. Diagnostic indexes for neurofilament light chain (NFL) and phosphorylated neurofilament heavy chain (pNFH) were calculated separately. Stata 12.0 software with a bivariate mixed-effects model was used to summarize the diagnostic indexes from eligible studies. Results: Five studies on NFL and eight studies on pNFH met inclusion criteria. For NFL, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 81% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72-88%) and 85% (95% CI, 76-91%), respectively; the positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) were 5.5 (95% CI, 3.1-9.8) and 0.22 (95% CI, 0.14-0.35), respectively; the summary diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 25 (95% CI, 9-70), and the area under summary receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.87-0.92). For pNFH, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR and NLR were 85% (95% CI, 80-88%), 85% (95% CI, 77-90%), 5.5 (95% CI, 3.6-8.4), and 0.18 (95% CI, 0.13-0.25), respectively; the DOR was 30 (95% CI, 16-58), and the AUC was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.88-0.93). Conclusion: Neurofilaments in CSF have a high value in the diagnosis of MND, though the optimal cutoff value remains to be further investigated.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 16%
Researcher 7 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Other 2 4%
Librarian 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 21 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 22%
Neuroscience 8 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 21 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 December 2016.
All research outputs
#17,835,502
of 22,912,409 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#3,822
of 4,825 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#287,781
of 416,545 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#76
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,912,409 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,825 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 416,545 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.