ArticleNeurology2026
Performance of the 2024 McDonald Criteria in Patients Under Evaluation for Suspected Multiple Sclerosis.
Article in Neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline 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
- Application of the 2024 McDonald Criteria: Earlier Diagnosis and Avoiding Misdiagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis in a Global Setting.Neurology · 2026Review
- Applying the 2024-revised McDonald criteria for multiple sclerosis using conventional diagnostic tools: a single-centre prospective cohort study in Germany.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Real-world application of the conventional components of the 2024 McDonald diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis in China: a comparative study with the 2017 criteria.Journal of neurology · 2026Article
- Multiple sclerosis as an asynchronous neuroinflammatory system.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Implementing the 2024 revision of the McDonald diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis in Germany: Practical considerations and consensus recommendations.Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThe 2024 McDonald criteria provide new recommendations for multiple sclerosis (MS) diagnosis, but validation of the criteria is lacking. We wanted to investigate the application and performance of the 2024 McDonald criteria in patients with suspected MS seen in routine clinical practice.
methodsWe retrospectively identified patients referred with clinical and/or radiologic suspicion for MS between January and December 2024. All patients had a minimum diagnostic evaluation with brain and spinal cord MRI. The 2017 McDonald criteria were applied prospectively, and the 2024 McDonald criteria were applied retrospectively after the initial diagnostic workup and at last follow-up. We investigated (1) the number of patients diagnosed with MS using the 2017 McDonald criteria or the 2024 McDonald criteria, and (2) the diagnostic performance of the 2024 McDonald criteria when applied during the initial diagnostic workup, with an MS diagnosis using the 2017 McDonald criteria as the reference-standard.
resultsIn 347 patients (mean age 39.4 years, 66% female) with suspected MS followed up for mean 15.3 (range 8-20) months, 73 (21%) had alternative disorders and were excluded. After applying the 2024 McDonald criteria in the remaining 274 patients, more patients were diagnosed with MS after the initial diagnostic workup (220 vs 172, DISCUSSION: Use of the 2024 McDonald allows for earlier MS diagnosis, but also more frequent diagnosis including in patients with radiologically isolated syndrome. The revised criteria have similar performance across the lifespan. Limitations include the lack of data on central vein sign and kappa free light chains, and missing optic nerve assessment in some patients.
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.