ReviewNeurology2026
Application of the 2024 McDonald Criteria: Earlier Diagnosis and Avoiding Misdiagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis in a Global Setting.
Review in 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The evolution of multiple sclerosis (MS) diagnostic criteria over the past 4 decades has shortened the time to diagnosis of MS, enabling earlier institution of immunomodulatory therapy and therefore improved clinical outcomes. In response to a recent expansion of knowledge related to approaches and paraclinical tools that may aid diagnosis of MS and identify causes of MS misdiagnosis, the 2024 McDonald criteria reflect substantive changes and introduce new pathways to MS diagnosis. These revisions carry potential for both earlier and more accurate diagnosis of MS, yet require expertise for their appropriate application in clinical practice and introduce new challenges for global implementation. These changes include expansion of anatomical locations that represent dissemination in space, new paraclinical findings that can substitute for dissemination in time, inclusion of patients with asymptomatic or nonspecific clinical presentations, and recommendations for diagnostic approaches in specific patient populations. These changes also incorporate new paraclinical tools for the first time, including MRI central vein sign and paramagnetic rim lesions, CSF kappa free light chains, and optical coherence tomography. The revised criteria have now unified the diagnostic pathway for clinical presentations typical of MS with attack or progressive onset, and established a new pathway for patients without symptoms or with nonspecific clinical presentations accompanied by MRI findings typical of MS. The 2024 revisions continue to rely on recognition of typical clinical and MRI findings of MS, and additionally recommend specific approaches to pediatric patients, patients with vascular comorbidities, and older patients to further reduce the risk of misdiagnosis. Previous data suggest barriers to implementation, and misunderstanding and misapplication of prior revisions to MS diagnostic criteria that may be associated with misdiagnosis. Implementation of the revised 2024 McDonald criteria globally, particularly in low and low-middle income countries, will require educational outreach, leveraging and maximizing existing resources, and engagement of health care systems to improve access to new technology. This review contextualizes the implications of key revisions in the 2024 criteria for routine clinical care, while providing accessible guidance for its appropriate application with a lens toward nonspecialist clinicians and trainees globally, to ensure early and accurate MS diagnosis.
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.