Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30264269›Full record

ReviewDer Nervenarzt2018

[MOG encephalomyelitis: international recommendations on diagnosis and antibody testing].

S Jarius, F Paul, O Aktas, N Asgari, R C Dale, J de Seze, D Franciotta, K Fujihara, A Jacob, H J Kim and 9 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Nervenarzt, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Detection of MOG-IgG by cell-based assay: moving from discovery to clinical practice.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2021
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

19 authors.

S JariusAG Molekulare Neuroimmunologie, Neurologische Klinik, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Otto-Meyerhof-Zentrum, Im Neuenheimer Feld 350, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland. sven.jarius@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
F PaulExperimental and Clinical Research Center, NeuroCure Clincial Research Center, und Berliner Institut für Gesundheitsforschung, Max-Delbrück-Zentrum für Molekulare Medizin und Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Gliedkörperschaft der Freien Universität Berlin und der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Deutschland.
O AktasNeurologische Klinik, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Deutschland.
N AsgariDepartment of Neurology, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Dänemark.
R C DaleChildren's Hospital at Westmead, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australien.
J de SezeDepartment of Neurology, Hôpital de Hautepierre, Strasbourg Cedex, Frankreich.
D FranciottaNeuroimmunology Laboratory, IRCCS Mondino Foundation, Pavia, Italien.
K FujiharaDepartment of Multiple Sclerosis Therapeutics, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan.
A JacobThe Walton Centre, Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, Großbritannien.
H J KimDepartment of Neurology, Research Institute and Hospital of National Cancer Center, Goyang, Südkorea.
I KleiterMarianne-Strauß-Klinik, Behandlungszentrum Kempfenhausen für Multiple Sklerose Kranke gGmbH, Berg, Deutschland.
T KümpfelInstitut für Klinische Neuroimmunologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München, Deutschland.
M LevyDepartment of Neurology, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Cleveland, USA.
J PalaceNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, Großbritannien.
K RuprechtKlinik für Neurologie mit experimenteller Neurologie, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Gliedkörperschaft der Freien Universität Berlin und der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Deutschland.
A SaizService of Neurology, Hospital Clinic, and Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spanien.
C TrebstNeurologische Klinik, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Deutschland.
B G WeinshenkerDepartment of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
B WildemannAG Molekulare Neuroimmunologie, Neurologische Klinik, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland. brigitte.wildemann@med.uni-heidelberg.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past few years, new-generation cell-based assays have demonstrated a robust association of autoantibodies to full-length human myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG-IgG) with (mostly recurrent) optic neuritis, myelitis and brainstem encephalitis, as well as with acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM)-like presentations. Most experts now consider MOG-IgG-associated encephalomyelitis (MOG-EM) a disease entity in its own right, immunopathogenetically distinct from both classic multiple sclerosis (MS) and aquaporin-4 (AQP4)-IgG-positive neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD). Owing to a substantial overlap in clinicoradiological presentation, MOG-EM was often unwittingly misdiagnosed as MS in the past. Accordingly, increasing numbers of patients with suspected or established MS are currently being tested for MOG-IgG. However, screening of large unselected cohorts for rare biomarkers can significantly reduce the positive predictive value of a test. To lessen the hazard of overdiagnosing MOG-EM, which may lead to inappropriate treatment, more selective criteria for MOG-IgG testing are urgently needed. In this paper, we propose indications for MOG-IgG testing based on expert consensus. In addition, we give a list of conditions atypical for MOG-EM ("red flags") that should prompt physicians to challenge a positive MOG-IgG test result. Finally, we provide recommendations regarding assay methodology, specimen sampling and data interpretation, and propose for the first time diagnostic criteria for MOG-EM.

Indexed as

AutoantibodiesEncephalomyelitisNeuromyelitis OpticaOptic NeuritisAquaporin 4Expert TestimonyHumansMyelin-Oligodendrocyte GlycoproteinAquaporin 4AutoantibodiesMyelin-Oligodendrocyte GlycoproteinAntibody testingConsensus recommendationsDiagnosisMultiple sclerosis (MS)Myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG) antibodiesMyelitisNeuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD)Optic neuritis (ON)

Identifiers

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.