Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36454262›Full record

ReviewDer Nervenarzt2023

[Performance of the revised 2017 McDonald criteria].

Franz Felix Konen, Philipp Schwenkenbecher, Mike P Wattjes, Thomas Skripuletz

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
In one paragraph

Review in Der Nervenarzt, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Franz Felix KonenKlinik für Neurologie mit Klinischer Neurophysiologie, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Deutschland.
Philipp SchwenkenbecherKlinik für Neurologie mit Klinischer Neurophysiologie, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Deutschland.
Mike P WattjesInstitut für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Neuroradiologie, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Deutschland.
Thomas SkripuletzKlinik für Neurologie mit Klinischer Neurophysiologie, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Deutschland. skripuletz.thomas@mh-hannover.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA rapid and reliable diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS) is crucial to initiate adapted disease-modifying treatment. The 2017 McDonald criteria were revised with the aim of further improving the diagnostic performance.

objectiveIn this article the published studies comparing the use of the 2017 and 2010 McDonald criteria were reviewed and analyzed in terms of diagnostic performance. MATERIAL AND

methodsA total of 20 studies and 1 review article with a total of 3006 evaluated patients were identified by means of a literature search in the PubMed database (search term: McDonald criteria 2010 and McDonald criteria 2017).

resultsUsing the 2017 McDonald criteria, a diagnosis of MS was made in more patients (2277/3006 patients, 76%) and in an earlier stage (3-10 months) compared with the 2010 revision (1562/3006 patients, 52%). Of the additional MS diagnoses, 193/715 were due to the adjustment of the imaging criteria of temporal dissemination and 536/715 were due to the introduction of oligoclonal bands as a diagnostic criterion.

conclusionThe revised McDonald criteria of 2017 have achieved their goal and enable the diagnosis of MS in a higher proportion of patients at the first clinical event.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingMultiple SclerosisHumansOligoclonal BandsOligoclonal BandsCerebrospinal fluidDiagnostic criteriaMultiple sclerosisOligoclonal bandsReview

Identifiers

PMID36454262
PMCPMC10256668

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.