ArticleNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2021
Developmental venous anomalies in patients with multiple sclerosis: is that a coincidence or an ancillary finding?
Article in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tumefactive Demyelinating Lesion Around a Developmental Venous Anomaly : A Rare Association.Clinical neuroradiology · 2023Article
- Biomechanical changes of the common carotid artery and internal jugular vein in patients with multiple sclerosis.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2023Article
- Nonlesional Sources of Contrast Enhancement on Postgadolinium "Black-Blood" 3D T1-SPACE Images in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2022Article
- Incidence of Developmental Venous Anomalies in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis: A 3 Tesla MRI Study.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDevelopmental venous anomalies (DVAs) have been found to be more prevalent in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). The aim of the study was to compare the prevalence of DVAs in a large population of patients with MS compared with controls and to investigate the correlation of 3D Fluid Attenuated Inversion Recovery (FLAIR) hyperintense signal abnormalities adjacent to DVAs between MS patients and controls having DVAs, as well as DVA potential role in differential diagnosis.
methodsBetween January 2001 and December 2019, 349 patients who met the McDonald criteria for MS diagnosis (249 females, 100 males, age range 18-70 years) were retrospectively included in the study. All patients and 340 age-matched healthy controls had brain MRIs performed on a 1.5 Tesla MR system. Two radiologists reviewed all images to identify DVAs; their presence was compared between the MS and control groups. Among the subjects having DVAs, age, gender, adjacent FLAIR anomalies, and DVA location were compared between the two groups.
resultsFifty (14.3%) out 349 patients presented 51 DVAs (35 supratentorial and 16 infratentorial), in comparison to 21/340 (6.2%) controls (P = 0.0005). One patient showed 2 simultaneous DVAs, while 3 patients had coexisting pontine capillary telangiectasias. FLAIR white matter changes adjacent to DVAs were found in 46.2% of patients and in 28.1% of controls (P = 0.0001).
conclusionsDVAs demonstrated a higher prevalence in the MS group in comparison to controls. We confirmed the association between DVAs and FLAIR anomalies in MS patients. However, currently there are no evidences that the presence of DVAs may be used in MS differential diagnosis.
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.