Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis: An Analysis of the Implementation of the Portuguese Consensus
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20344/amp.22637Keywords:
Consensus, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Multiple Sclerosis/diagnostic imaging, PortugalAbstract
Introduction: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plays a critical role in diagnosing and monitoring people with multiple sclerosis (MS). The 2020 Portuguese Consensus on Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis aimed to standardize MRI use. This study evaluated the implementation of the consensus in clinical practice.
Methods: This is an observational, retrospective, longitudinal and multicentric study comprising patients diagnosed with MS between 2019 and 2022 from seven hospital centers in Portugal. We collected demographic data and details regarding MRI requests, protocols, and reports. We performed descriptive and comparative analyses between the period before and after guideline publication.
Results: We included 242 patients, mainly female (66.0%), with a mean age of 37 (SD 13). A total of 989 MRIs were performed, 69.1% follow-ups, 68.1% brain MRIs, and 31.9% spinal cord MRIs. Around half of the MRI requests fulfilled all the recommended information. All mandatory sequences in the neuroimaging protocol were performed in 82.5% of brain MRIs and 71.1% of spinal cord MRIs. None of the reports fulfilled all the suggested parameters. Magnetic resonance imaging technical description and imaging findings had the least compliance, mainly concerning gadolinium information (0.85%), lesion load (18.6%), and atrophy characterization (27.1%). After the implementation of the consensus, physicians reported the MS phenotype more often (p < 0.05) and neuroradiologists reported more technical parameters (p < 0.05). When MRIs were performed in a private setting, neuroimaging protocols were similar, but the reports fulfilled more frequently the suggested topics regarding the conclusion (p < 0.05).
Conclusion: This study suggests incomplete adherence to the Portuguese Consensus on MRI in MS. Information provided by the physician in MRI requests was often insufficient, which could hamper MRI protocol planning. Magnetic resonance imaging reports were frequently lacking relevant information for the diagnosis and follow-up of MS patients. Further efforts are needed to ensure full implementation and optimize MS care.
Downloads
References
Branco M, Alves I, Martins da Silva A, Pinheiro J, Sá MJ, Correia I, et al. The epidemiology of multiple sclerosis in the entre Douro e Vouga region of northern Portugal: a multisource population-based study. BMC neurol. 2020;20:1-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-020-01755-8
McDonald WI, Compston A, Edan G, Goodkin D, Hartung HP, Lublin FD, et al. Recommended diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines from the International Panel on the Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis. Ann Neurol. 2001;50:121-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.1032
Thompson AJ, Banwell BL, Barkhof F, Carroll WM, Coetzee T, Comi G, et al. Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria. Lancet Neurol. 2018;17:162-73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30470-2
Wattjes MP, Ciccarelli O, Reich DS, Banwell B, de Stefano N, Enzinger C, et al. 2021 MAGNIMS-CMSC-NAIMS consensus recommendations on the use of MRI in patients with multiple sclerosis. Lancet Neurol. 2021;20:653-70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(21)00095-8
Abreu P, Pedrosa R, Sá MJ, Cerqueira J, Sousa L, Da Silva AM, et al. Consensus Recommendations of the Multiple Sclerosis Study Group and Portuguese Neuroradiological Society for the Use of the Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis in Clinical Practice: Part 1. Acta Med Port. 2018;31:281-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20344/amp.10503
Pereira DJ, Abreu P, Reis AM, Seixas D, Carreiro I, Cravo I, el at. Consensus recommendations of the Multiple Sclerosis Study Group and the Portuguese Neuroradiological Society for the use of magnetic resonance imaging in multiple sclerosis in clinical practice: part 2. Acta Med Port. 2020;33:66-75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20344/amp.11532
Wallin M, Culpepper W, Campbell J, Nelson L, Langer-Gould A, Marrie R, et al. The prevalence of MS in the United States: a population-based estimate using health claims data. Neurology. 2019;92:e1029-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000007035
Sellebjerg F, Bornsen L, Ammitzboll C, Nielsen J, Vinther-Jensen T, Hjermind L, et al. Defining active progressive multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2017;23:1727-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458517726592
Aires A, Barros A, Machado C, Fitas D, Cação G, Pedrosa R, et al. Diagnostic delay of multiple sclerosis in a Portuguese population. Acta Med Port. 2019;32:289-94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20344/amp.11187
Uher T, Adzima A, Srpova B, Noskova L, Maréchal B, Maceski A, et al. Diagnostic delay of multiple sclerosis: prevalence, determinants and consequences. Mult Scler J. 2023;29:1437-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13524585231197076
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Multiple sclerosis in adults: management. NICE Clinical guideline [CG186]. 2014. [cited 2024 Oct 15]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg186.
Vagberg M, Axelsson M, Birgander R, Burman J, Cananau C, Forslin Y, et al. Guidelines for the use of magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing and monitoring the treatment of multiple sclerosis: recommendations of the Swedish Multiple Sclerosis Association and the Swedish Neuroradiological Society. Acta Neurol Scand. 2017;135:17-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ane.12667
Castillo C, Steffens T, Sim L, Caffery L. The effect of clinical information on radiology reporting: a systematic review. J Med Radiat Sci. 2021;68:60-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.424
Cruz A, Pereira D, Batista S. Utilização de gadolínio nas RM de controlo em doentes com esclerose múltipla: recomendações atuais. Acta Med Port. 2024;37:53-63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20344/amp.20467
Thomassen Ø, Storesund A, Søfteland E, Brattebø G. The effects of safety checklists in medicine: a systematic review. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2014;58:5-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.12207
Wattjes M, Rovira À, Miller D, Yousry T, Sormani M, de Stefano N, el at. Evidence-based guidelines: MAGNIMS consensus guidelines on the use of MRI in multiple sclerosis—clinical implementation in the diagnostic process. Nat Rev Neurol. 2015;11:471-82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2015.106
Filippi M, Preziosa P, Banwell B, Barkhof F. Assessment of lesions on magnetic resonance imaging in multiple sclerosis: practical guidelines. Brain. 2019;142:1858-75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awz144
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Acta Médica Portuguesa
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All the articles published in the AMP are open access and comply with the requirements of funding agencies or academic institutions. The AMP is governed by the terms of the Creative Commons ‘Attribution – Non-Commercial Use - (CC-BY-NC)’ license, regarding the use by third parties.
It is the author’s responsibility to obtain approval for the reproduction of figures, tables, etc. from other publications.
Upon acceptance of an article for publication, the authors will be asked to complete the ICMJE “Copyright Liability and Copyright Sharing Statement “(http://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/info/AMP-NormasPublicacao.pdf) and the “Declaration of Potential Conflicts of Interest” (http:// www.icmje.org/conflicts-of-interest). An e-mail will be sent to the corresponding author to acknowledge receipt of the manuscript.
After publication, the authors are authorised to make their articles available in repositories of their institutions of origin, as long as they always mention where they were published and according to the Creative Commons license.
