Cited by 15Multiple Sclerosis Research StudiesClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsPeripheral Neuropathies and Disorders

Comparison of the 2010 and 2005 versions of the McDonald MRI criteria for dissemination-in-time in Taiwanese patients with classic multiple sclerosis

Hsueh, Chun-Jen, Kao, Hung-Wen, Chen, Shao-Yuan, Lo, Chung-Ping, Hsu, Chia-Chun, Liu, Dai-Wei, Hsu, Wen-Lin·2013·Journal of the Neurological Sciences

Abstract

In 2010, the International Panel on the Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis revised the 2005 version of the McDonald criteria. The revisions to MRI dissemination-in-time criteria include adoption of a new criterion by demonstration of simultaneous asymptomatic gadolinium-enhancing and nonenhancing lesions on baseline MRI scans. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the diagnostic validity of the modified MRI dissemination-in-time criteria. We collected 80 patients with an initial clinical attack suggestive of an acute central nervous system demyelinating disease. The patients were followed for at least two years or until the development of definite multiple sclerosis. The nonconverters were taken as negative cases. Their baseline and follow-up brain MRI studies were retrospectively reviewed by two neuroradiologists. The 2010 version had higher sensitivity (68.2% vs. 45.5%), slightly lower specificity (80.6% vs. 83.3%), and higher accuracy (73.8% vs. 62.5%) than the 2005 version, but the differences were without statistical significance. The new criteria are more sensitive and accurate and specific just as the old criteria. They allow the diagnosis of definite multiple sclerosis in 34.1% patients at first presentation of the clinically isolated syndrome.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jns.2013.03.018

Cites

2 of 2 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?

  • Additional studies concerning the applicability of the 2010 McDonald Criteria in Asian, Middle Eastern, and Latin American populations have been published since 2010, though tended to be small.

    “Additional studies concerning the applicability of the 2010 McDonald Criteria in Asian, 22-24 Middle Eastern, 25,26 and Latin American 27 populations have been published since 2010, though tended to be small.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hsueh, C.-J., Kao, H.-W., Chen, S.-Y., Lo, C.-P., Hsu, C.-C., Liu, D.-W., & Hsu, W.-L.
Affiliations
  • Tri-Service General Hospital (TW)
  • Fu Jen Catholic University (TW)
  • Tzu Chi University (TW)
Corresponding author
Lo, Chung-Ping
Venue
Journal of the Neurological Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-06
Volume
329
Issue
1-2
Pages
51-54
ISSN
0022-510X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2111463558
Cited by
15
References
2
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of the Neurological Sciences (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 › Neurology › Peripheral Neuropathies and Disorders
Keywords
McDonald criteria, dissemination in time, multiple sclerosis diagnosis, gadolinium-enhancing lesions, clinically isolated syndrome, sensitivity and specificity, brain MRI, Taiwanese patients
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Multiple Sclerosis, Optic Nerve, Retrospective Studies, Sensitivity and Specificity, Spinal Cord, Taiwan, 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