ArticleNeuropsychiatric disease and treatment2022
Sensitivity and Specificity of Central Vein Sign as a Diagnostic Biomarker in Egyptian Patients with Multiple Sclerosis.
Article in Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of the central vein sign in diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of neurology · 2026Pooled it
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Isotropic FLAIR-T2* Fusion Imaging for Central Vein Sign Detection in Multiple Sclerosis: a Comparative Study at 1.5 T and 3 T.Clinical neuroradiology · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings in multiple sclerosis (MS) overlap with numerous MS mimics. The central vein sign (CVS) can help to differentiate MS from other mimics. This study aimed to determine the value of CVS as a diagnostic biomarker for distinguishing MS from its mimics. Patients and Methods: Patients were prospectively recruited into two groups: a typical clinical (TC) MS presentation with an atypical MRI for MS and an atypical clinical (ATC) MS presentation with a typical MRI for MS. Patients underwent a 1.5T MRI brain scan with a T2*-weighted gradient-echo sequence. The presence of the central vein was assessed by a radiologist blinded to patients' clinical presentation. The MS consultant made the final diagnosis without reviewing the T2*-weighted gradient-echo sequence or the CVS analysis results. Results: Forty-two patients were included. Ten (40%) out of 25 TC patients were diagnosed with clinically definite MS (CDMS), with a mean percentage of CV-positive lesions of 65.5% among CDMS patients. Four (23.5%) out of 17 ATC patients were diagnosed with CDMS with a mean CV-positive lesions percentage of 68.25% among CDMS patients. TC patients who were not diagnosed as CDMS had a mean CV-positive lesions percentage of 10.13%, while ATC patients who were not diagnosed as CDMS had a mean CV-positive lesions percentage of 16.38%. The CVS showed 85.7% sensitivity and 100% specificity (95% confidence interval: 0.919-1.018) for diagnosis of MS at a cut off value of 45% ( Conclusion: The CVS has 85.7% sensitivity and 100% specificity for the diagnosis of MS at a cutoff value of 45%.
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.