ArticleJournal of neurology2025
Limited added value of systematic spinal cord MRI vs brain MRI alone to classify patients with MS as active or inactive during follow-up.
Article in Journal of neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Expert Panel Consensus Guidelines of the German Society of Neuroradiology on the Use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis and Monitoring of Multiple Sclerosis.Clinical neuroradiology · 2026Guideline
- Spinal cord imaging in multiple sclerosis: A vital component we can no longer overlook.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2026Pooled it
- [XVIII Post-ECTRIMS Meeting: Review of the New Developments Presented at the 2025 ECTRIMS Congress (Part I)].Revista de neurologia · 2026Article
- AI-driven reclassification of multiple sclerosis progression.Nature medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe utility of systematic spinal cord (SC) MRI for monitoring disease activity after a multiple sclerosis (MS) diagnosis remains a topic of debate.
objectivesTo evaluate the frequency of disease activity when considering brain MRI alone versus both brain and SC MRI and to identify factors associated with the occurrence of new SC lesions.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of clinical and imaging data prospectively collected over 5 years as part of the EMISEP cohort study. A total of 221 intervals (with both brain and spinal cord MRI scans available at 2 consecutive time-points) from 68 patients were analysed. For each interval, brain (3D Fluid-Attenuated Inversion Recovery (FLAIR, axial T2 and axial PD) and SC MRI (sagittal T2 and phase-sensitive inversion recovery, axial T2*w and 3D T1) were reviewed to detect new lesions. Each interval was classified as symptomatic (with relapse) or asymptomatic. The baseline brain and SC lesion numbers were computed.
resultsSC MRI activity without clinical relapse and/or brain MRI activity was rare (4 out of 221 intervals, 2%). The occurrence of a new SC lesion was associated with the number of brain lesions at baseline (OR = 1.002 [1.000; 1.0004], p = 0.015) and the occurrence of a new brain lesion during the interval (OR = 1.170 [1.041; 1.314], p = 0.009), but not with the baseline SC lesion number (p = 0.6).
conclusionThese findings support the current guidelines recommending routine disease monitoring with brain MRI alone, even in patients with a high SC lesion load.
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.