The utility of cerebrospinal fluid analysis in patients with multiple sclerosis
Abstract
Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS) requires the exclusion of other possible diagnoses. For this reason, the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) should be routinely analysed in patients with a first clinical event suggestive of MS. CSF analysis is no longer mandatory for diagnosis of relapsing-remitting MS, as long as MRI diagnostic criteria are fulfilled. However, caution is required in diagnosing MS in patients with negative MRI findings or in the absence of CSF analysis, as CSF investigation is useful to eliminate other causes of disease. The detection of oligoclonal IgG bands in CSF has potential prognostic value and is helpful for clinical decision-making. In addition, CSF analysis is important for research into the pathogenesis of MS. Pathophysiological and neurodegenerative findings of inflammation in MS have been derived from CSF investigations. Novel CSF biomarkers, though not yet validated, have been identified for diagnosis of MS and for ascertaining disease activity, prognosis and response to treatment, and are likely to increase in number with modern detection techniques. In this Review, we summarize CSF findings that shed light on the differential diagnosis of MS, and highlight the potential of novel biomarkers for this disease that could advance understanding of its pathophysiology.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Multiple studies provide evidence that in adult patients with CIS, CSF OCBs are an independent predictor of the risk of a second attack when controlling for demographic, clinical, treatment, and MRI variables.
“Multiple studies provide evidence that in adult patients with CIS, CSF OCBs are an independent predictor of the risk of a second attack when controlling for demographic, clinical, treatment, and MRI variables. 61-69”
From Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria (2018) · cites this paper as [63]
Cites
Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria
Polman, C. H., Reingold, S. C., Banwell, B., Clanet, M., Cohen, J. A., Filippi, M., Fujihara, K., Havrdova, E., Hutchinson, M., Kappos, L., et al. (2011) · Annals of Neurology · doi:10.1002/ana.22366 · Cited by 9,802 · see citing works
Neurofilament phosphoforms: Surrogate markers for axonal injury, degeneration and loss
Petzold, A. (2005) · Journal of the Neurological Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.jns.2005.03.015 · Cited by 688 · see citing works
Self-citationFreedman, M. S., Thompson, E. J., Deisenhammer, F., Giovannoni, G., Grimsley, G., Keir, G., Öhman, S., Racke, M. K., Sharief, M., Sindic, C. J. M., et al. (2005) · Archives of Neurology · doi:10.1001/archneur.62.6.865 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria
Thompson, A. J., Banwell, B. L., Barkhof, F., Carroll, W. M., Coetzee, T., Comi, G., Correale, J., Fazekas, F., Filippi, M., Freedman, M. S., et al. (2018) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(17)30470-2 · Cited by 8,167 · see citing works
Positive cerebrospinal fluid in the 2024 McDonald criteria for multiple sclerosis
Deisenhammer, F., Hegen, H., Arrambide, G., Banwell, B. L., Coetzee, T., Gnanapavan, S., Montalban, X., Tumani, H., Willrich, M. A., & Freedman, M. S. (2025) · eBioMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2025.105905 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Stangel, M., Fredrikson, S., Meinl, E., Petzold, A., Stüve, O., & Tumani, H.
- Affiliations
- Medizinische Hochschule Hannover (DE)
- Karolinska Institutet (SE)
- Institut für Klinische Neuroimmunologie (DE)
- UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology (GB)
- VA North Texas Health Care System (US)
- Universität Ulm (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Stangel, Martin
- Venue
- Nature Reviews Neurology
- Published
- 2013-03-26
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 267-276
- ISSN
- 1759-4758 (ISSN-L)
- 1759-4766
- OpenAlex
- W2114061884
- Cited by
- 229
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 3
- FWCI
- 2.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Nature Reviews Neurology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
- Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- mediaTUM (Technical University of Munich) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Peripheral Neuropathies and Disorders
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Infectious Diseases and Tuberculosis
- Keywords
- multiple sclerosis, cerebrospinal fluid analysis, cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers, oligoclonal bands, differential diagnosis, relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, MRI diagnostic criteria, disease activity, prognosis, neuroinflammation, neurodegeneration, pathophysiology
- MeSH terms
- Cerebrospinal Fluid Proteins, Humans, Multiple Sclerosis, Oligoclonal Bands, Chemokine CXCL13
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