ArticleJAMA neurology2018
Application of the 2017 Revised McDonald Criteria for Multiple Sclerosis to Patients With a Typical Clinically Isolated Syndrome.
Article in JAMA neurology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
53 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 133 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparator Event Rates, Baseline Activity, and Operational Selection Pressure in Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis Trials: A Meta-Epidemiological Analysis.European journal of neurology · 2026Pooled it
- Cognitive Performance and Psychological Characteristics in Patients With Clinically Isolated Syndrome: A Case-Control Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Real-world application of the conventional components of the 2024 McDonald diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis in China: a comparative study with the 2017 criteria.Journal of neurology · 2026Article
- Machine learning based model for the detection of multiple sclerosis from OCT-derived macular and optic disc retinal biomarkers.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Article
- Performance of the 2024 McDonald Criteria in Patients Under Evaluation for Suspected Multiple Sclerosis.Neurology · 2026Article
- The evolution of disease criteria in multiple sclerosis: underlying motives and broader implications.BMC neurology · 2026Article
- Bridging the gap between guidelines and practice: neurologists' readiness for the updated McDonald criteria in Egypt.BMJ neurology open · 2026Article
- The Kappa Free Light Chains Index and Central Vein Sign: Two New Biomarkers for Multiple Sclerosis Diagnosis.Neurology and therapy · 2025Review
- Investigating Whether Dissemination in Time Is Essential to Diagnose Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis.Neurology · 2025Article
- Towards a Unified Set of Diagnostic Criteria for Multiple Sclerosis.Annals of neurology · 2025Article
- Hyperreflective retinal foci are associated with retinal degeneration after optic neuritis in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders and multiple sclerosis.European journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Gastroparesis-An Often-Overlooked Sign of Multiple Sclerosis: Case Report.Case reports in immunology · 2025Article
- Hematological markers as prognostic indicators in multiple sclerosis progression.Biomarkers in medicine · 2025Article
- The role of AI for MRI-analysis in multiple sclerosis-A brief overview.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Review
- Prevalence of comorbid autoimmune diseases and antibodies in newly diagnosed multiple sclerosis patients.Neurological research and practice · 2024Article
- Current and future role of MRI in the diagnosis and prognosis of multiple sclerosis.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2024Review
- Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis using optical coherence tomography supported by explainable artificial intelligence.Eye (London, England) · 2024Article
- A multicenter pilot study evaluating simplified central vein assessment for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2024Article
- Agreement between video-based clinician-rated tools and patient-reported outcomes on gait assessment in individuals with multiple sclerosis.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: In 2017, the International Panel on Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis revised the McDonald 2010 criteria for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS). The new criteria are easier to apply and could lead to more and earlier diagnoses. It is important to validate these criteria globally for their accuracy in clinical practice. Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the 2017 criteria vs the 2010 criteria in prediction of clinically definite MS in patients with a typical clinically isolated syndrome (CIS). Design, Setting and Patients: A total of 251 patients at Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, in collaboration with several regional hospitals, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Thirteen patients received another diagnosis early in the diagnostic process and therefore were excluded from the analyses. Nine patients with CIS declined to participate in the study. This left 229 patients who were included between March 2006 and August 2016 in this prospective CIS cohort. Patients underwent a baseline magnetic resonance imaging scan within 3 months after onset of symptoms and, if clinically required, a lumbar puncture was performed. Data were analyzed between December 2017 and January 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive and negative predictive value were calculated after 1, 3, and 5 years for the 2017 vs the 2010 criteria. Results: Among the 229 patients with CIS, 167 were women (73%), and the mean (SD) age was 33.5 (8.2) years. One hundred thirteen patients (49%) were diagnosed as having CDMS during a mean (SD) follow-up time of 65.3 (30.9) months. Sensitivity for the 2017 criteria was higher than for the 2010 criteria (68%; 95% CI, 57%-77% vs 36%; 95% CI, 27%-47%; P < .001), but specificity was lower (61%; 95% CI, 50%-71% vs 85%; 95% CI, 76%-92%; P < .001). Using the 2017 criteria, more MS diagnoses could be made at baseline (n = 97 [54%]; 95% CI, 47%-61% vs n = 46 [26%]; 95% CI, 20%-32%; P < .001). In the group with at least 5 years of follow-up, 33% of patients who were diagnosed as having MS using the 2017 criteria did not experience a second attack during follow-up vs 23% when using the 2010 criteria. Conclusions and Relevance: The 2017 revised McDonald criteria are associated with greater sensitivity but less specificity for a second attack than the previous 2010 criteria. The tradeoff is that it leads to a higher number of MS diagnoses in patients with a less active disease course.
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.