ArticleJournal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea)2026
MOG-IgG Positivity Does Not Equal MOGAD: Diagnostic Pitfall and Misapplication of the International MOGAD Panel Proposed Criteria in Real-World Practice.
Article in Journal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea), 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.
- Beyond Positivity: Understanding and Interpreting MOG-IgG Testing in MOGAD.Journal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea) · 2026Review
- Reports of the Clinician's Demise Are Greatly Exaggerated: Clinical Judgment Remains Key in Diagnosing MOGAD.Journal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposeMyelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody-associated disease (MOGAD) has been increasingly recognized, yet concerns remain regarding the overuse and misinterpretation of MOG-IgG testing. The recently published MOGAD diagnostic criteria emphasize selective testing and rigorous interpretation in the context of compatible clinical syndromes and supportive features. We investigated, in real-world practice, the extent to which these criteria are appropriately applied and the frequency and characteristics of their misapplication at a referral center.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed patients referred to the National Cancer Center with externally reported MOG-IgG positivity between January 2021 and December 2024. External assay results were based on laboratory-specific cutoffs, which had not been verified against clinically validated thresholds. Final diagnoses were determined by expert consensus after comprehensive evaluation, applying the 2023 international MOGAD diagnostic criteria.
resultsFifty-seven patients with external MOG-IgG positivity were referred, of whom 48 (84.2%) had been labeled as MOGAD. Upon re-evaluation, only 39 patients (68.4%) met the diagnostic criteria. Of the 18 non-confirmed patients, 5 (27.8%) manifested nonspecific symptoms incompatible with core demyelinating events, 9 patients (50.0%) received an alternative diagnosis, and 4 (22.2%) presented core events but lacked supportive features.
conclusionsOver one-third of patients with externally reported positive results did not meet diagnostic criteria, illustrating the risk of non-targeted MOG-IgG testing and overinterpretation of antibody results. Selective test utilization and strict adherence to diagnostic criteria in the context of appropriate clinical syndromes and supportive findings are essential to prevent overdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment.
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.