Cited by 4Multiple Sclerosis Research StudiesClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsPolyomavirus and related diseases

Added value of optic nerve lesions for multiple sclerosis diagnostic criteria

Mahmoudi, Nima, Renne, Julius, Konen, Franz Felix, Jendretzky, Konstantin Fritz, Möhn, Nora, Grote-Levi, Lea, Gingele, Stefan, Hümmert, Martin W. +5 more·2025·Journal of Neurology

Abstract

Background Optic neuritis is a frequent initial presentation of multiple sclerosis (MS). It has been suggested that optic nerve lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) should be considered as an additional lesion location for the demonstration of dissemination in space (DIS) in diagnostic criteria for MS. However, the potential value of optic nerve lesion(s) in MS diagnostic criteria has not yet been sufficiently investigated. Methods We prospectively included 79 patients presenting with the first clinical event suggestive of MS. All patients underwent neurological work-up, visual-evoked potential (VEP) testing, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis and contrast-enhanced MRI of the brain, spinal cord and optic nerves (ON). Patients were classified results according to the McDonald 2017 criteria, the MAGNIMS criteria and alternative criteria considering ON imaging findings for both DIS and dissemination in time (DIT). Results 69 patients (87%) fulfilled DIS according to the MAGNIMS criteria, 67 patients (85%) according to McDonald 2017 and 70 patients (89%) according to the alternative diagnostic criteria. Including contrast enhancing ON lesions as an additional criterion for DIT and disregarding CSF results led to n = 9 (11%) additional patients fulfilling DIT and receiving the diagnosis MS compared to the McDonald 2017 and MAGNIMS criteria. Considering CSF findings in addition to MRI, 68 patients received the diagnosis of MS according to McDonald 2017 compared to 66 patient…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00415-025-13036-w

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mahmoudi, N., Renne, J., Konen, F. F., Jendretzky, K. F., Möhn, N., Grote-Levi, L., Gingele, S., Hümmert, M. W., Schwenkenbecher, P., Soldatov, A., Sühs, K.-W., Skripuletz, T., & Wattjes, M. P.
Affiliations
  • Medizinische Hochschule Hannover (DE)
  • Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (DE)
Corresponding author
Wattjes, Mike P.
Venue
Journal of Neurology
Published
2025-04-24
Volume
272
Issue
5
Pages
358-358
ISSN
  • 0012-1037 (ISSN-L)
  • 0340-5354
  • 1432-1459
OpenAlex
W4409768744
Cited by
4
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 4
FWCI
2.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Neurology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Polyomavirus and related diseases
Keywords
multiple sclerosis, optic nerve lesions, optic neuritis, diagnostic criteria, dissemination in space, dissemination in time, visual evoked potentials, cerebrospinal fluid findings, contrast-enhanced MRI, sensitivity and specificity
MeSH terms
Adult, Evoked Potentials, Visual, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Multiple Sclerosis, Optic Nerve, Optic Neuritis, Prospective Studies, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review