ArticleJournal of neurology2024
Real-life evaluation of the 2017 McDonald criteria for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis after a clinically isolated syndrome confirms a gain in time-to-diagnosis.
Article in Journal of neurology, 2024. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global and Regional Trends in Multiple Sclerosis Incidence with Projections to 2030: A Joinpoint Regression Analysis of the GBD Data 2021 by Socio-Demographic Index and WHO Regions.Annals of global health · 2026Article
- Diagnostic performance of the 2010, 2017, and 2024 McDonald criteria: clinical implications in multiple sclerosis.Journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Should We Consider Neurodegeneration by Itself or in a Triangulation with Neuroinflammation and Demyelination? The Example of Multiple Sclerosis and Beyond.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Incidence and prevalence of multiple sclerosis during eras of evolving diagnostic criteria-a nationwide population-based registry study over five decades.Multiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinicalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious cohort studies evaluating the performances of the McDonald criteria suffered from bias regarding real-life conditions. We aimed to evaluate the probability of diagnosing relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) at several timepoints from the first medical evaluation and the gain in time-to-diagnosis with the 2017 McDonald criteria compared with the 2001, 2005 and 2010 versions in real life.
methodsPatients with a first demyelinating event suggestive of MS between 2002 and 2020 were included in the ReLSEP, an exhaustive and prospectively incremented registry of MS patients in North-Eastern France. We estimated the probability of being positive at the first medical evaluation and at five timepoints according to the four versions of criteria using Kaplan-Meier estimators and Cox models.
resultsA total of 2220 patients were followed up for a median of 7.1 years. At baseline, 31.7%, 32.1%, 36.6% and 54.0% of patients, respectively, fulfilled the 2001, 2005, 2010 and 2017 McDonald criteria. Using the 2017 criteria, the gain in time-to-diagnosis was 3.7 months compared with the 2010 criteria. The presence of intrathecal synthesis of immunoglobulin G in the McDonald 2017 criteria led to a 1.8-month reduction in median time-to-diagnosis compared to a version of McDonald 2017 without this criteria.
conclusionsIn real-life, the 2017 McDonald criteria revision undoubtedly shortened time-to-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.