ReviewJournal of neurology2016
Spring cleaning: time to rethink imaging research lines in MS?
Review in Journal of neurology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Iron Rims as an Imaging Biomarker in MS: A Systematic Mapping Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Key clinical benefits of neuroimaging at 7T.NeuroImage · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Together with recently advanced MRI technological capability, new needs and updated questions are emerging in imaging research in multiple sclerosis (MS), especially with respect to the identification of novel in vivo biomarkers of MS-relevant pathological processes. Expected benefits will involve approaches to diagnosis and clinical classification. In detail, three main points of discussion are addressed in this review: (1) new imaging biomarkers (centrifugal/centripetal lesion enhancement, central vein, paramagnetic rims at the lesion edge, subpial cortical demyelination); (2) thinking about high-resolution MR from a pathological perspective (from postmortem to in vivo staging); and (3) the clinical utility of quantitative MRI. In this context, research efforts should increasingly be focused on the direct in vivo visualization of "hidden" inflammation, beyond what can be detected with conventional gadolinium-based methods, as well as remyelination and repair, since these are likely to represent critical pathological processes and potential therapeutic targets. Concluding remarks concern the limitations, challenges, and ultimately clinical role of non-conventional MRI techniques.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.