Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29358319›Full record

ReviewCold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine2018

Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis.

Christopher C Hemond, Rohit Bakshi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

69 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

Christopher C HemondLaboratory for Neuroimaging Research, Partners Multiple Sclerosis Center, Ann Romney Center for Neurologic Diseases, Departments of Neurology and Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115.
Rohit BakshiLaboratory for Neuroimaging Research, Partners Multiple Sclerosis Center, Ann Romney Center for Neurologic Diseases, Departments of Neurology and Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since its technical development in the early 1980s, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has quickly been adopted as an essential tool in supporting the diagnosis, longitudinal monitoring, evaluation of therapeutic response, and scientific investigations in multiple sclerosis (MS). The clinical usage of MRI has increased in parallel with technical innovations in the technique itself; the widespread adoption of clinically routine MRI at 1.5T has allowed sensitive qualitative and quantitative assessments of macroscopic central nervous system (CNS) inflammatory demyelinating lesions and tissue atrophy. However, conventional MRI lesion measures lack specificity for the underlying MS pathology and only weakly correlate with clinical status. Higher field strength units and newer, advanced MRI techniques offer increased sensitivity and specificity in the detection of disease activity and disease severity. This review summarizes the current status and future prospects regarding the role of MRI in the characterization of MS-related brain and spinal cord involvement.

Indexed as

BrainHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMultiple SclerosisSpinal Cord

Identifiers

PMID29358319
PMCPMC5932576

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.