Diagnosing multiple sclerosis: implementation and unintended effects of the 2024 McDonald criteria

Clicks: 38
ID: 326601
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #54 of 380 articles by views in Brain research

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 380 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis have evolved substantially since the Schumacher criteria were published in 1965. The most recent iteration, the 2024 McDonald diagnostic criteria, was recently released. Each revision has broadened the range of evidence that can support diagnosis while attempting to preserve specificity. The central question raised by the 2024 revision is therefore not simply whether the criteria are valid in principle, but whether they can be applied safely outside expert centres, where imaging quality, laboratory infrastructure and subspecialist interpretation vary substantially. In this review, we evaluate the 2024 criteria not only as a consensus document but as an intervention in clinical behaviour, with particular attention to misdiagnosis risk, operational feasibility and equity of implementation. In particular, we consider the role of the optic nerve and of the central vein sign and paramagnetic rim lesions in diagnosis, and how the criteria bring more diverse populations and presentations into consideration. We also review how the greater options available to achieve a diagnosis may introduce heterogeneity into diagnostic approaches, and what safeguards can be taken to minimise the risk of inappropriate application of the criteria and subsequent misdiagnosis (and inappropriate treatment). The review finishes by proposing how the changes introduced in this iteration might be refined, with more robust definitions on acquiring and interpreting the novel biomarkers.
Reference Key
openalex_W7204562349 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Michael A. Foster, Charles Wade, Helen L Ford, Klaus Schmierer
Journal Brain research
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/brain/awag293
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awag293
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.