Cited by 50Multiple Sclerosis Research StudiesClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsPolyomavirus and related diseases

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Should the symptomatic region be included in dissemination in space in MRI criteria for MS?

Open access

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether inclusion of lesions in the symptomatic region influences the performance of dissemination in space (DIS) criteria for a diagnosis of clinically definite multiple sclerosis (CDMS) in patients with a clinically isolated syndrome (CIS). METHODS: We studied 30 patients with CIS with brainstem/cerebellar and spinal cord syndromes who had MRI scans at the time of CIS and were followed up for the development of CDMS. We retrospectively applied the McDonald 2010 DIS criteria (excluding all lesions in the symptomatic region) to baseline MRI scans and 2 modified DIS criteria: (1) the inclusion of asymptomatic lesions in the symptomatic region in DIS, and (2) the inclusion of any lesion in the symptomatic region in DIS. The performance of the McDonald 2010 DIS criteria and the 2 modified criteria for the development of CDMS was compared. RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the DIS criteria was, respectively, 73%, 73%, and 73% for the McDonald 2010 criteria, 80%, 73%, and 77% when asymptomatic lesions in the symptomatic region were included, and 87%, 73%, and 80% when any lesion in the symptomatic region was included in DIS. CONCLUSIONS: Including lesions in the symptomatic region in DIS increases the sensitivity of MRI criteria for diagnosing multiple sclerosis without compromising specificity. These findings may help inform future revisions of the diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that for patients with CIS, including lesions in the symptomatic region as part of the criteria for DIS does not significantly increase the accuracy for predicting the development of CDMS. The study lacks the precision to detect an important change in accuracy.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1212/wnl.0000000000002975

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. 10.1002/ana.22366 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1002/ana.20703 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1002/ana.410130302 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1177/1352458511417828 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1136/jnnp-2014-308675 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1136/jnnp.2005.073247 · DOI
  7. 10.1038/nrneurol.2015.106 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1177/1352458510386999 · DOI
  9. 10.1093/brain/awm329 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1016/S1474-4422(15)00393-2 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Brownlee, W. J., Swanton, J. K., Miszkiel, K. A., Miller, D. H., & Ciccarelli, O.
Affiliations
UCL Biomedical Research Centre (GB)
Venue
Neurology
Published
2016-08-16
Volume
87
Issue
7
Pages
680-683
ISSN
  • 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-632X
OpenAlex
W2472467404
Cited by
50
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 2
FWCI
9.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Neurology (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0508-10058)
  • Multiple Sclerosis Society
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Polyomavirus and related diseases
Keywords
dissemination in space, clinically isolated syndrome, multiple sclerosis diagnosis, asymptomatic lesions, McDonald criteria, diagnostic accuracy, spinal cord syndromes
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain Stem, Cerebellum, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Multiple Sclerosis, Sensitivity and Specificity, Spinal Cord, Practice Guidelines as Topic, 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