Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20386873›Full record

ArticleDer Nervenarzt2010

["Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency" and multiple sclerosis: critical analysis and first observation in an unselected cohort of MS patients].

C Krogias, A Schröder, H Wiendl, R Hohlfeld, R Gold

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Nervenarzt, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Association between chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency and multiple sclerosis: a meta-analysis.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2011
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. CCSVI and MS: no meaning, no fact.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2013
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

C KrogiasNeurologische Klinik, St. Josef-Hospital, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Gudrunstrasse 56, Bochum, Germany. christos.krogias@rub.de
A Schröder
H Wiendl
R Hohlfeld
R Gold
Ruhr University Bochum · DELudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DESt. Josef-Hospital · DEUniversity of Würzburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Currently, the hypothesis that altered venous hemodynamics might play a causative role in the pathogenesis of multiple sclerosis (MS) is being controversially discussed. This new "venous hypothesis" postulates that obstructions of the cervical venous system cause an increased pressure of the intracranial venous system and that in turn intracranial congestion disintegrates the blood-brain barrier initiating the inflammatory process in MS.The "venous hypothesis" is analyzed and evaluated with regard to the following aspects: first concerning the validity of published data, second with regard to the plausibility in view of the currently approved pathogenetic model of MS, and third with regard to the compatibility with preliminary neurosonological findings in a small but unselected cohort of patients at our department.The authors conclude that the "chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI)" cannot represent the exclusive pathogenetic factor in the pathogenesis of MS. In our cohort, only 20% of the patients fulfilled the required neurosonological features of CCSVI. So far, the pathogenetic relevance of these findings remains speculative. Thus, based on the current scientific position we cannot justify invasive "therapeutic" approaches, especially if they are performed outside of clinical trials.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBlood-Brain BarrierBrainCerebral VeinsChronic DiseaseCohort StudiesConstriction, PathologicFemaleHemodynamicsHumansJugular VeinsMaleMiddle AgedMultiple SclerosisRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID20386873
OpenAlexW1482522726

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.