Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38809270›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurology2024

Assessing the applicability of the 2023 international MOGAD panel criteria in real-world clinical settings.

Ariel Rechtman, Tal Freidman-Korn, Omri Zveik, Lyne Shweiki, Garrick Hoichman, Adi Vaknin-Dembinsky

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. MOG antibody-positive patients meeting diagnostic criteria for MS: is it MOGAD with an MS-like phenotype or true MS?Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ariel RechtmanDepartment of Neurology and Laboratory of Neuroimmunology and the Agnes-Ginges Center for Neurogenetics, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Ein-Kerem, Germany.
Tal Freidman-KornDepartment of Neurology and Laboratory of Neuroimmunology and the Agnes-Ginges Center for Neurogenetics, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Ein-Kerem, Germany.
Omri ZveikDepartment of Neurology and Laboratory of Neuroimmunology and the Agnes-Ginges Center for Neurogenetics, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Ein-Kerem, Germany.
Lyne ShweikiDepartment of Neurology and Laboratory of Neuroimmunology and the Agnes-Ginges Center for Neurogenetics, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Ein-Kerem, Germany.
Garrick HoichmanDepartment of Neurology and Laboratory of Neuroimmunology and the Agnes-Ginges Center for Neurogenetics, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Ein-Kerem, Germany.
Adi Vaknin-DembinskyDepartment of Neurology and Laboratory of Neuroimmunology and the Agnes-Ginges Center for Neurogenetics, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Ein-Kerem, Germany. adembinsky@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMyelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody-associated disease (MOGAD) is a recently identified demyelinating disorder with a diverse clinical spectrum. Diagnosing MOGAD traditionally relies on clinical judgment, highlighting the necessity for precise diagnostic criteria. Banwell et al. proposed criteria, aiming to refine the diagnostic spectrum. This study evaluates these criteria in a real-life cohort, comparing their performance with clinical judgment and describe the cohort of MOGAD patients.

methodsThis retrospective study, conducted at Hadassah Medical Center, included 88 patients with MOG-IgG antibodies. Patients with a positive or borderline MOG-IgG antibodies by cell-based assay were included. Demographics, clinical and MRI data were recorded. Cases were divided into definite MOGAD and Non-MOGAD groups as determined by the treating physician. We assessed the sensitivity and specificity of the new criteria in comparison to treating physicians' evaluations. Additionally, we examined clinical differences between the MOGAD and Non-MOGAD groups.

resultsWe observed a strong concordance (98%) between the new MOGAD criteria and treating physicians' diagnoses. Clinical disparities between MOGAD and Non-MOGAD groups included lower EDSS scores, normal MRI scans, preserved brain volume, negative OCB results, and distinct relapse patterns. Also, compared to relapsing patients, monophasic MOGAD patients have greater brain volume and a lower age at onset.

conclusionThe study demonstrates robust accuracy of new MOGAD criteria, emphasizing their potential to enhance diagnostic precision. Treatment response integration into the MOGAD diagnosis is crucial, as it could aid in distinguishing MOGAD from other demyelinating disorders. Distinct clinical profiles highlight the importance of informed decisions in managing MOGAD and similar disorders.

Indexed as

Myelin-Oligodendrocyte GlycoproteinAdultAutoantibodiesDemyelinating Autoimmune Diseases, CNSFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityYoung AdultAutoantibodiesMOG protein, humanMyelin-Oligodendrocyte GlycoproteinDiagnosisMOGADMOG-IgGVolumetry

Identifiers

PMID38809270
PMCPMC11319595

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.