Cited by 9Multiple Sclerosis Research StudiesAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

Central vein sign and paramagnetic rim lesion abbreviated counting methods for diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Toljan, K., Amin, M., Ontaneda, D.·2025·Clinical Radiology

Abstract

Aim The central vein sign (CVS) and paramagnetic rim lesion (PRL) are neuroimaging biomarkers in multiple sclerosis (MS). Abbreviated CVS methods are an alternative to percentage-based approaches. The pooled diagnostic performance of Select-3 (≥3 CVS + lesions), Select-6 (≥6 CVS + lesions), and PRL (≥1 lesion) is unknown. To summarise the diagnostic performance of CVS and PRL abbreviated methods forMS. Materials and methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis for studies that included two common abbreviated CVS methods (Select-3, Select-6), and/or ≥1 PRL. The search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Studies were included if the sample consisted of participants with MS and controls, and if the diagnostic performance of CVS and/or PRL was extractable. Quality was determined according to the QUADAS-2 tool. Meta-analysis was performed with a hierarchical model. Prespecified sensitivity analyses were conducted. Publication bias was assessed with Deeks' plot. Resuts Twenty-nine studies were included. Select-3 was available in 14 studies, Select-6 in 12 studies, and PRL in 17 studies. For Select-3, pooled sensitivity was 0.88 (0.79-0.94) and specificity was 0.77 (0.65-0.86), for Select-6 0.82 (0.70-0.89) and 0.89 (0.82-0.94), and for ≥1 PRL 0.56 (0.42-0.69) and 0.99 (0.95-1.00). Quality was impacted by risk of bias due to patient selection (10/15 CVS studies, 15/17 PRL studies). Conclusion Select-6 and PRL are specific for MS, while Select-3 is sens…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.crad.2025.106984

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Toljan, K., Amin, M., & Ontaneda, D.
Affiliations
Cleveland Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Toljan, K.
Venue
Clinical Radiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-09
Volume
88
Pages
106984
ISSN
0009-9260 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4411200798
Cited by
9
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 1
FWCI
1.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Radiology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb
  • Biogen
  • Race to Erase MS
  • Multiple Sclerosis Society
  • Genentech
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
multiple sclerosis, central vein sign, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity, neuroimaging biomarkers, brain MRI
MeSH terms
Brain, Cerebral Veins, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Multiple Sclerosis, Sensitivity and Specificity, Neuroimaging

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