ArticleEuropean journal of neurology2026
Does Interrater Variation Influence the Classification According to the Diagnostic Criteria for Multiple Sclerosis?
Article in European journal of neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of the 2024 McDonald Criteria: Earlier Diagnosis and Avoiding Misdiagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis in a Global Setting.Neurology · 2026Review
- Does Interrater Variation Influence the Classification According to the Diagnostic Criteria for Multiple Sclerosis?European journal of neurology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudies on interrater agreement in MRI analysis for patients experiencing a first clinical episode suggestive of multiple sclerosis (MS) are limited and outdated. This study aimed to evaluate interrater agreement for lesion identification in the brain, optic nerve, and spinal cord, and to assess variability in applying the 2017 and 2024 McDonald criteria.
methodsSeventy-eight patients underwent a standardized multisequence 3 Tesla MRI of the brain, optic nerves, and spinal cord, analyzed by three readers with varying expertise. Lesions were categorized based on location according to McDonald criteria. Interrater variability was measured using Cohen's κ for pairwise reader comparisons and Fleiss κ for overall agreement.
resultsInterrater agreement ranged from slight to fair for total lesion count and moderate to substantial for lesion presence. The highest agreement occurred for spinal cord lesions (κ = 0.84), periventricular T2 lesions (κ = 0.70), and gadolinium-enhancing brain lesions (κ = 0.75). Classification agreement based on diagnostic criteria was substantial between the 2017 and 2024 McDonald criteria revisions (κ = 0.65).
conclusionsDespite advanced standardized imaging protocols at 3 T, interrater agreement regarding lesion counts does not improve substantially. However, agreement in classifying lesions according to diagnostic criteria is consistent between the 2017 and 2024 criteria.
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.