ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Optic nerve lesions on optic nerve 2D-STIR vs brain 3D-FLAIR in clinically isolated syndromes.
Article in European radiology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe 2024 McDonald criteria for multiple sclerosis include the optic nerve as the fifth location for dissemination in space. While optic nerve 2D-STIR is the recommended diagnostic approach, brain 3D-FLAIR is more routinely acquired during initial assessments of clinically isolated syndrome (CIS). This study compares optic nerve lesion detection between the two imaging techniques in CIS and evaluates the structural and functional significance of the lesions. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included 51 CIS patients from a prospective cohort at University College London. All underwent optic nerve 2D-STIR, brain 3D-FLAIR, and optical coherence tomography (OCT), as well as visual function assessments. Optic nerve lesions were identified, and lesion lengths were recorded using both imaging techniques. Diagnostic performance was evaluated using clinical optic neuritis diagnosis as the reference standard. Visual function and OCT (pRNFL, GCIPL, and GCL) were compared between 2D-STIR-positive and negative eyes.
results2D-STIR and 3D-FLAIR both showed 100% sensitivity. Specificity and accuracy were 85.5% and 91.2% for 2D-STIR, and 88.7% and 93.1% for 3D-FLAIR, respectively. Lesion detection agreement was near-perfect (Cohen's Kappa = 0.961, p < 0.001), and lesion length measurements were highly concordant (ICC = 0.886). In non-symptomatic eyes, 2D-STIR detected slightly more lesions (14.5% vs 11.3%). 2D-STIR-positive eyes showed significantly worse visual function and thinner retinal layers.
conclusionBrain 3D-FLAIR and optic nerve 2D-STIR show high agreement in detecting optic nerve lesions, with comparable diagnostic performance. 3D-FLAIR is a practical alternative for assessing the optic nerves in routine brain imaging, especially when dedicated optic nerve acquisitions are unavailable. KEY POINTS: Question Compare brain 3D-FLAIR with dedicated optic nerve 2D-STIR for detecting optic nerve lesions in CIS and determine their association with early clinical measures. Findings 2D-STIR and 3D-FLAIR showed excellent agreement and performance in detecting optic nerve lesions. Optic nerve lesions were associated with worse vision and retinal layer thinning. Clinical relevance 3D-FLAIR offers a feasible alternative for evaluating the optic nerves on routine brain MRI, particularly when dedicated optic nerve acquisitions are unavailable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42763330What 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.