Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36331588›Full record

SynthesisNeuroradiology2023

Commercial volumetric MRI reporting tools in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review of the evidence.

Zoe Mendelsohn, Hugh G Pemberton, James Gray, Olivia Goodkin, Ferran Prados Carrasco, Michael Scheel, Jawed Nawabi, Frederik Barkhof

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neuroradiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Artificial Intelligence and Multiple Sclerosis.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2024
    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

8 authors.

Zoe MendelsohnNeuroradiological Academic Unit, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK. z.mendelsohn@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8619-7518
Hugh G PembertonNeuroradiological Academic Unit, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8419-6423
James GrayStepping Hill Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, Stockport, UK.
Olivia GoodkinNeuroradiological Academic Unit, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9283-9716
Ferran Prados CarrascoDepartment of Medical Physics and Bioengineering, Centre for Medical Image Computing (CMIC), University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7872-0142
Michael ScheelDepartment of Neuroradiology, Charité School of Medicine and University Hospital Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3505-2914
Jawed NawabiDepartment of Radiology, Charité School of Medicine and University Hospital Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1137-0643
Frederik BarkhofNeuroradiological Academic Unit, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3543-3706

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMRI is integral to the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS) and is important for clinical prognostication. Quantitative volumetric reporting tools (QReports) can improve the accuracy and objectivity of MRI-based assessments. Several QReports are commercially available; however, validation can be difficult to establish and does not currently follow a common pathway. To aid evidence-based clinical decision-making, we performed a systematic review of commercial QReports for use in MS including technical details and published reports of validation and in-use evaluation.

methodsWe categorized studies into three types of testing: technical validation, for example, comparison to manual segmentation, clinical validation by clinicians or interpretation of results alongside clinician-rated variables, and in-use evaluation, such as health economic assessment.

resultsWe identified 10 companies, which provide MS lesion and brain segmentation and volume quantification, and 38 relevant publications. Tools received regulatory approval between 2006 and 2020, contextualize results to normative reference populations, ranging from 620 to 8000 subjects, and require T1- and T2-FLAIR-weighted input sequences for longitudinal assessment of whole-brain volume and lesions. In MS, six QReports provided evidence of technical validation, four companies have conducted clinical validation by correlating results with clinical variables, only one has tested their QReport by clinician end-users, and one has performed a simulated in-use socioeconomic evaluation.

conclusionWe conclude that there is limited evidence in the literature regarding clinical validation and in-use evaluation of commercial MS QReports with a particular lack of clinician end-user testing. Our systematic review provides clinicians and institutions with the available evidence when considering adopting a quantitative reporting tool for MS.

Indexed as

Multiple SclerosisBrainClinical Decision-MakingCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMRIMultiple sclerosisQuantitative volumetric reporting toolsSystematic reviewValidation

Identifiers

PMID36331588
PMCPMC9816195

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.