Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30083703›Full record

ArticleJAMA neurology2018

Application of the 2017 Revised McDonald Criteria for Multiple Sclerosis to Patients With a Typical Clinically Isolated Syndrome.

Roos M van der Vuurst de Vries, Julia Y Mescheriakova, Yu Yi M Wong, Tessel F Runia, Naghmeh Jafari, Johnny P Samijn, Janet W K de Beukelaar, Beatrijs H A Wokke, Theodora A M Siepman, Rogier Q Hintzen

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

53 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 133 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Roos M van der Vuurst de VriesDepartment of Neurology, MS Center ErasMS, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Julia Y MescheriakovaDepartment of Neurology, MS Center ErasMS, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Yu Yi M WongDepartment of Neurology, MS Center ErasMS, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Tessel F RuniaDepartment of Neurology, MS Center ErasMS, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Naghmeh JafariDepartment of Neurology, Amphia Hospital, Breda, the Netherlands.
Johnny P SamijnDepartment of Neurology, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Janet W K de BeukelaarDepartment of Neurology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Beatrijs H A WokkeDepartment of Neurology, MS Center ErasMS, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Theodora A M SiepmanDepartment of Neurology, MS Center ErasMS, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Rogier Q HintzenDepartment of Neurology, MS Center ErasMS, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Erasmus University Rotterdam · NLAlbert Schweitzer Ziekenhuis · NLAmphia Ziekenhuis · NLErasmus MC · NLMaasstad Ziekenhuis · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AdultFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedMultiple SclerosisPractice Guidelines as TopicRecurrenceSensitivity and SpecificityYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID30083703
PMCPMC6248116
OpenAlexW2886831656

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.