2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2020.01.011
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Central vein sign for multiple sclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
8
0
3

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
8
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…23,24 Of the new lesions that were eligible for CVS analysis, 68% were CVS+, which is in line with the overall rates of cross-sectional baseline CVS+ percentage previously described in MS, illustrating how these percentages evolve from the accumulation of new, primarily CVS+, lesions over time. 10,12 In contrast, neurologically normal HC with nonspecific T2/FLAIR hyperintensities on baseline MRI were less likely to form new lesions over time compared to MS cases; in the 2 HC who formed new lesions, both lesions were CVS−, consistent with their lower baseline CVS+ percentage.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…23,24 Of the new lesions that were eligible for CVS analysis, 68% were CVS+, which is in line with the overall rates of cross-sectional baseline CVS+ percentage previously described in MS, illustrating how these percentages evolve from the accumulation of new, primarily CVS+, lesions over time. 10,12 In contrast, neurologically normal HC with nonspecific T2/FLAIR hyperintensities on baseline MRI were less likely to form new lesions over time compared to MS cases; in the 2 HC who formed new lesions, both lesions were CVS−, consistent with their lower baseline CVS+ percentage.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…The central vein sign (CVS) is a central linear hypointensity within lesions, visualized on susceptibility-sensitive MRI sequences (such as T2*-weighted scans) and corresponding to the small vein or venule around which the lesion formed. 9 , 10 The CVS has been proposed as a radiologic biomarker and is seen with high frequency in MS lesions, 11 , 12 such that it can effectively differentiate MS from other etiologies associated with nonspecific white matter lesions. 13 , 14 However, whereas the CVS has shown promise in aiding the initial diagnosis of MS based on the evaluation of established lesions, the CVS characteristics of newly appearing T2/FLAIR or Gd+ lesions in MS have not been comprehensively described.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Certainly, there is some relationship of demyelination with veins, at least a relationship of vicinity as pathogenetic relationship is not very clear [11] . Demyelinating disorders specifically Multiple Sclerosis is generally considered a “peri-venous disease” [ 12 , 13 ] and lately, supported by manifestation of “Central Vein Sign” on high field MRI. More interesting would be the potential role of hypoxemic injury causing demyelinating COVID-19 related leukoencephalopathy in the setting of sustained respiratory dysfunction.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Можно выделить два основных направления исследований в данной области: 1) выявление симптома центральной вены при РС и сравнение полученных данных с таковыми при РС-подобных заболеваниях (прочих демиелинизирующих, сосудистых, аутоиммунных), которые имеют схожую МРТ-картину при рутинном обследовании; 2) определение доли очагов с симптомом центральной вены (в разных исследованиях порог колеблется от 40 до 50%) или минимального количества таких очагов для повышения чувствительности и специфичности метода [11]. О б з о р и с с л е д о в а н и й , п о с в я щ е н н ы х д а н н о й т е м е E.C.…”
unclassified
“…[20] получены следующие данные: порог перивенулярных очагов 45% имеет 97% чувствительность и 99% специфичность, причем в обзор были включены исследования, проводившиеся на то-мографах1,5; 3 и 7 Т. В другом обзоре с метаанализом A. Bhandari и соавт. [11] выявлен практически аналогичный порог перивенулярных очагов -46,4%, но выбрано удобное значение в 45%. Также отмечено, что данный симптом может быть обнаружен на томографах как 3, так и 1,5 Т и что подсчет очагов исследователем более точен, чем компьютерный анализ.…”
unclassified