ArticleThe neuroradiology journal2017
Comparison of diffusion-weighted imaging and enhanced T1-weighted sequencing in patients with multiple sclerosis.
Article in The neuroradiology journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Simoa, high‑sensitivity ELISA, and CLIA for serum neurofilament light chain quantification in multiple sclerosis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Cerebrospinal fluid neurofilament light chains and CXCL13 as predictive factors for clinical course of multiple sclerosis.Biomedical papers of the Medical Faculty of the University Palacky, Olomouc, Czechoslovakia · 2023Observational
- Current and Future Biomarkers in Multiple Sclerosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Multiple sclerosis: prevalence of the 'central vein' sign in white matter lesions on gadolinium-enhanced susceptibility-weighted images.The neuroradiology journal · 2021Article
- Potential Biomarkers Associated with Multiple Sclerosis Pathology.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction The purpose of this study was to assess whether demographic, brain anatomical regions and contrast enhancement show differences in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients with increased diffusion lesions (ID group) compared with diffusion restriction (DR group). Method MRI protocol comprised T1- and T2-weighted sequences with and without gadolinium (Gd), and sagittal three-dimensional FLAIR sequence, DWI and ADC maps were prospectively performed in 126 MS patients from January to December 2015. The investigation was conducted to evaluate differences in demographic, cord and brain regional, technical, and positive or negative Gd contrast imaging parameters in two groups of ID and DR. Statistical analysis was performed by using SPSS. Results A total of 9.6% of patients showed DR. In the DR group, 66.6% of the patients showed contrast enhancement of plaques, whereas 29.2% of the IR group showed enhancement of plaques. The most prevalent group was non-enhanced plaques in the ID group, followed by Gd-enhanced plaques in the ID group. Patients in the ID group (90.4%) were significantly more than in the DR group (9.6%). Out of the 40 patients with Gd-enhanced plaques, 80.5% was from the ID group and 19.5% from the DR group. Conclusion MRI of the brain, unlike of the cord, with Gd demonstrates significant difference in enhancement between the two groups ( p < 0.05). No significant difference was seen in demographic, cord and brain regional, and technical parameters, EDSS, disease duration, and attack rate as well as demographic and regional parameters between the ID and decrease diffusion groups ( p > 0.05).
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.