SynthesisJournal of neurology2026
Accuracy of the central vein sign in diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe central vein sign (CVS) is a promising imaging marker of multiple sclerosis (MS). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of CVS-based rules in the differential diagnosis of MS and to identify the best cutoffs for these rules.
methodsPubMed, Embase, and Scopus were systematically searched for available evidence. Data extracted were entered into Bayesian models recommended by the Cochrane network. Summary sensitivity and specificity of CVS-based diagnostic rules across different positivity thresholds were calculated. A meta-regression for the role of gadolinium-based MRI protocols was also performed.
results3434 patients from 28 studies were included. Three CVS-based diagnostic rules were found: the first one considers the percentage of CVS + lesions (relative threshold method), the second one the presence of CVS in a given number of lesions selected in T2 sequences (select-n method), and the third one the presence of a given number of CVS + lesions in gradient-echo sequences (select-n* method). For relative threshold method, the best cutoff was 37.5% (sensitivity 97.3%, 95%CI 90.9-99.6%; specificity 90.4%, 95%CI 83.2-95.9%; Youden index 0.877); for select-n* method, 4 was the best threshold (sensitivity 87.1%, 95%CI 66.9-96.6%; specificity 88.2%, 95%CI 65.1-98.1%; Youden index 0.753). Use of gadolinium-based MRI protocols was irrelevant (for relative threshold method RDOR = 6.62, 95%CI 0.68-71.27; for select-n* method RDOR = 2.52, 95%CI 0.35-15.36).
conclusionsRelative threshold and select-n* methods are good predictors of MS diagnosis. This synthesis should support the use of CVS in clinical practice and prompt further research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41582108What 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.