Cited by 499Multiple Sclerosis Research StudiesPolyomavirus and related diseasesPeripheral Neuropathies and Disorders

Predictive value of gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for relapse rate and changes in disability or impairment in multiple sclerosis: a meta-analysis

Open access
Kappos, Ludwig, Moeri, David, Radue, Ernst Wilhelm, Schoetzau, Andreas, Schweikert, Kati, Barkhof, Frederik, Miller, David, Guttmann, Charles RG +3 more·1999·The Lancet

Abstract

Background Reliable prognostic factors are lacking for multiple sclerosis (MS). Gadolinium enhancement in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain detects with high sensitivity disturbance of the blood-brain barrier, an early event in the development of inflammatory lesions in MS. To investigate the prognostic value of gadolinium-enhanced MRI, we did a meta-analysis of longitudinal MRI studies. Methods From the members of MAGNIMS (European Magnetic Resonance Network in Multiple Sclerosis) and additional centres in the USA, we collected data from five natural-course studies and four placebo groups of clinical trials completed between 1992 and 1995. We included a total of 307 patients, 237 with relapsing disease course and 70 with secondary progressive disease course. We investigated by regression analysis the relation between initial count of gadolinium-enhancing lesions and subsequent worsening of disability or impairment as measured by the expanded disability status scale (EDSS) and relapse rate. Findings The relapse rate in the first year was predicted with moderate ability by the mean number of gadolinium-enhancing lesions in monthly scans during the first 6 months (relative risk per five lesions 1.13, p=0.023). The predictive value of the number of gadolinium-enhancing lesions in one baseline scan was less strong. The best predictor for relapse rate was the variation (SD) of lesion counts in the first six monthly scans which allowed an estimate of relapse in the firs…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(98)03053-0

Cites

34 of 34 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?

  • Conventional T2-weighted MRI (cMRI) largely fails to predict the degree of patients' disability.

    “Conventional T2-weighted MRI (cMRI) largely fails to predict the degree of patients' disability.”

    From Diffusion tensor imaging of post mortem multiple sclerosis brain (2007) · cites this paper as Kappos et al., 1999

  • The inability of cMRI to reflect MS pathology in more detail may be one of the major reasons why the correlation between cMRI measures and disability is only modest.

    “The inability of cMRI to reflect MS pathology in more detail may be one of the major reasons why the correlation between cMRI measures and disability is only modest (Kappos et al., 1999; Brex et al., 2002).”

    From Diffusion tensor imaging of post mortem multiple sclerosis brain (2007) · cites this paper as Kappos et al., 1999

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kappos, L., Moeri, D., Radue, E. W., Schoetzau, A., Schweikert, K., Barkhof, F., Miller, D., Guttmann, C. R., Weiner, H. L., Gasperini, C., & Filippi, M.
Affiliations
  • University Hospital of Basel (CH)
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
  • UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology (GB)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Sapienza University of Rome (IT)
  • University of Milan (IT)
Corresponding author
Kappos, Ludwig
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1999-03
Volume
353
Issue
9157
Pages
964-969
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2141185335
Cited by
499
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 9
FWCI
5.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca - Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele (submittedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Multiple Sclerosis Society
  • Schweizerische Multiple Sklerose Gesellschaft
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Polyomavirus and related diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Peripheral Neuropathies and Disorders
Keywords
multiple sclerosis, gadolinium-enhancing lesions, relapse rate, disability progression, Expanded Disability Status Scale, prognostic factors, blood-brain barrier disruption, secondary progressive multiple sclerosis, relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, natural history of disease, disease-modifying therapy response, treatment response prediction, relapse
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Blood-Brain Barrier, Brain, Clinical Trials as Topic, Contrast Media, Female, Forecasting, Gadolinium, Persons with Disabilities, Disabled Persons, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Multiple Sclerosis, Predictive Value of Tests, Prognosis, Recurrence, Regression Analysis, Risk Factors, Multicenter Studies as Topic, Odds Ratio, Disease Progression

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