Transatlantic confusion in MS diagnostic criteria: one patient, two continents, zero diagnosis

The lack of universal diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis (MS) delays diagnosis and care. Diagnostic guidelines widen existing gaps in neurological health depending on how they are applied by clinicians across the globe. The 2016 MAGNIMS and 2017 McDonald's criteria for MS exclude cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) findings, and optic neuritis (ON), respectively, opening the door for missed diagnosis, which, in under-resourced settings, could have devastating consequences. When guidelines prioritize precision over clinical inclusion, they risk excluding patients with a true diagnosis, and undermine the very utility they aim to standardize. Diagnostic frameworks must evolve not only to reflect statistical rigor but support health policy that demands the real-world consequences of underdiagnosis just as heavily as the cost of overdiagnosis. Precision with inclusivity and epidemiologic modeling should be part of that conversation. The burden of MS is immense; we need universal diagnostic criteria that cut across borders.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Diagnosis
Published
2025-11-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2025-0103
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.47
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Transatlantic confusion in MS diagnostic criteria: one patient, two continents, zero diagnosis

Jagannadha Avasarala
1 citations
Diagnosis
Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
1.47
article

Transatlantic confusion in MS diagnostic criteria: one patient, two continents, zero diagnosis

Jagannadha Avasarala
article en
1 citations

Abstract

The lack of universal diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis (MS) delays diagnosis and care. Diagnostic guidelines widen existing gaps in neurological health depending on how they are applied by clinicians across the globe. The 2016 MAGNIMS and 2017 McDonald's criteria for MS exclude cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) findings, and optic neuritis (ON), respectively, opening the door for missed diagnosis, which, in under-resourced settings, could have devastating consequences. When guidelines prioritize precision over clinical inclusion, they risk excluding patients with a true diagnosis, and undermine the very utility they aim to standardize. Diagnostic frameworks must evolve not only to reflect statistical rigor but support health policy that demands the real-world consequences of underdiagnosis just as heavily as the cost of overdiagnosis. Precision with inclusivity and epidemiologic modeling should be part of that conversation. The burden of MS is immense; we need universal diagnostic criteria that cut across borders.

Diagnosis
University of Kentucky (US), Lexington Clinic (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 14%
Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
1.47
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.