Journal of neurology · 2026
Accuracy of the central vein sign in diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Систематический обзорСтатьяМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Baiamonte Ludovico, Sera Francesco, Bellante Giovanna, Ragonese Paolo, Salemi Giuseppe
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The central vein sign (CVS) is a promising imaging marker of multiple sclerosis (MS). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of CVS-based rules in the differential diagnosis of MS and to identify the best cutoffs for these rules.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were systematically searched for available evidence. Data extracted were entered into Bayesian models recommended by the Cochrane network. Summary sensitivity and specificity of CVS-based diagnostic rules across different positivity thresholds were calculated. A meta-regression for the role of gadolinium-based MRI protocols was also performed.
RESULTS: 3434 patients from 28 studies were included. Three CVS-based diagnostic rules were found: the first one considers the percentage of CVS + lesions (relative threshold method), the second one the presence of CVS in a given number of lesions selected in T2 sequences (select-n method), and the third one the presence of a given number of CVS + lesions in gradient-echo sequences (select-n* method). For relative threshold method, the best cutoff was 37.5% (sensitivity 97.3%, 95%CI 90.9-99.6%; specificity 90.4%, 95%CI 83.2-95.9%; Youden index 0.877); for select-n* method, 4 was the best threshold (sensitivity 87.1%, 95%CI 66.9-96.6%; specificity 88.2%, 95%CI 65.1-98.1%; Youden index 0.753). Use of gadolinium-based MRI protocols was irrelevant (for relative threshold method RDOR = 6.62, 95%CI 0.68-71.27; for select-n* method RDOR = 2.52, 95%CI 0.35-15.36).
CONCLUSIONS: Relative threshold and select-n* methods are good predictors of MS diagnosis. This synthesis should support the use of CVS in clinical practice and prompt further research.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were systematically searched for available evidence. Data extracted were entered into Bayesian models recommended by the Cochrane network. Summary sensitivity and specificity of CVS-based diagnostic rules across different positivity thresholds were calculated. A meta-regression for the role of gadolinium-based MRI protocols was also performed.
RESULTS: 3434 patients from 28 studies were included. Three CVS-based diagnostic rules were found: the first one considers the percentage of CVS + lesions (relative threshold method), the second one the presence of CVS in a given number of lesions selected in T2 sequences (select-n method), and the third one the presence of a given number of CVS + lesions in gradient-echo sequences (select-n* method). For relative threshold method, the best cutoff was 37.5% (sensitivity 97.3%, 95%CI 90.9-99.6%; specificity 90.4%, 95%CI 83.2-95.9%; Youden index 0.877); for select-n* method, 4 was the best threshold (sensitivity 87.1%, 95%CI 66.9-96.6%; specificity 88.2%, 95%CI 65.1-98.1%; Youden index 0.753). Use of gadolinium-based MRI protocols was irrelevant (for relative threshold method RDOR = 6.62, 95%CI 0.68-71.27; for select-n* method RDOR = 2.52, 95%CI 0.35-15.36).
CONCLUSIONS: Relative threshold and select-n* methods are good predictors of MS diagnosis. This synthesis should support the use of CVS in clinical practice and prompt further research.