Evidence Hub

Predictive value of lesions for relapses in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

Koziol JA, Wagner S, Sobel DF, Slivka LS, Romine JS, Sipe JC, Adams HP

AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2001

50 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Recent studies have suggested that enhancing lesions on contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MR images are predictive of impending exacerbations in cases of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. We examined whether enhancing lesions, new enhancing lesions, and new hypointense lesions ("black holes") could accurately predict exacerbations in a cohort of 50 patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis within a time frame of up to 6 months.

METHODS: Data were obtained from 50 patients with relapsing-remitting disease. All patients underwent monthly MR imaging and clinical examinations for a period of 12 months. Putative predictors of clinical relapse were defined from enhancing lesions, new enhancing lesions, and new black hole outcomes, and their operating characteristics were studied.

RESULTS: Overall, the positive predictive values (PV+) of enhancing lesions, new enhancing lesions, or new black holes for an exacerbation did not exceed 0.25 and the negative predictive values (PV-) were all near 0.9. The best predictor for new enhancing lesions was the occurrence of new enhancing lesions in each of the previous 3 months (PV+: 0.79 [95% confidence interval, 0.651-0.900]; PV-: 0.83 [95% confidence interval, 0.751-0.887]). Similarly, new black holes were predicted best by the occurrence of new black holes in each of the previous 2 months (PV+: 0.54 [95% confidence interval: 0.372-0.697]; PV-: 0.85 [95% confidence interval, 0.790-0.896]).

CONCLUSION:…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 50 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free