Background: multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects the central nervous system (CNS). Its diagnosis is characterized by foci of demyelination, disseminated over time and anatomical space, both clinically and radiologically. Consensus guidelines for the diagnosis of MS have been established to identify the proper sequences and imaging technique. Objective: this study aims to investigate the adherence of Taif hospitals to these consensus guidelines. Method: data were collected from the radiology departments of 3 main hospitals in Taif (King Abdul-Aziz Specialist Hospital, King Faisal Medical Complex, and Al-Hada Hospital for Armed Forces). The standard magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol for MS in each hospital was reviewed using the picture archiving and communication system (PACS). The comparisons were based on the strength of the magnetic field, slice thickness, slice orientation, coverage, and the MR core sequences used. Results: each Taif hospital has its own protocol, which differ from consensus guidelines. The main difference is the hospitals’ lack of 3D sequences. Another difference is the lack of inversion recovery prepared T1 sequences. Finally, for follow-up patients, no contrast administration exists in Taif hospitals. Conclusion: this study shows some major differences in the MS protocols among Taif hospitals. This is probably due to poor awareness of the guidelines in the radiology community. Neuroradiologists at Taif hospitals should ensure the recommended protocol is followed.
| Published in | International Journal of Medical Imaging (Volume 8, Issue 4) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ijmi.20200804.16 |
| Page(s) | 102-105 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Multiple Sclerosis, MRI, Radiology, Taif
| [1] | Compston A, Coles A. Multiple sclerosis. Lancet Lond Engl 2002; 359: 1221–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08220-X. |
| [2] | Brownlee WJ, Hardy TA, Fazekas F, Miller DH. Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: progress and challenges. The Lancet 2017; 389: 1336–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30959-X. |
| [3] | Browne P, Chandraratna D, Angood C, Tremlett H, Baker C, Taylor BV, et al. Atlas of Multiple Sclerosis 2013: A growing global problem with widespread inequity. Neurology 2014; 83: 1022–4. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000000768. |
| [4] | Trojano M, Lucchese G, Graziano G, Taylor BV, Jr SS, Lepore V, et al. Geographical variations in sex ratio trends over time in multiple sclerosis. PLoS ONE 2012; 7: e48078. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0048078. |
| [5] | Heydarpour P, Khoshkish S, Abtahi S, Moradi-Lakeh M, Sahraian MA. Multiple Sclerosis Epidemiology in Middle East and North Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Neuroepidemiology 2015; 44: 232–44. https://doi.org/10.1159/000431042. |
| [6] | McDonald WI, Compston A, Edan G, Goodkin D, Hartung H-P, 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.1032. |
| [7] | Polman CH, Reingold SC, Edan G, Filippi M, Hartung H-P, Kappos L, et al. Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2005 revisions to the “McDonald Criteria.” Ann Neurol 2005; 58: 840–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.20703. |
| [8] | 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30470-2. |
| [9] | Polman CH, Reingold SC, Banwell B, Clanet M, Cohen JA, Filippi M, et al. Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 Revisions to the McDonald criteria. Ann Neurol 2011; 69: 292–302. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.22366. |
| [10] | Filippi M, Rocca MA, Ciccarelli O, De Stefano N, Evangelou N, Kappos L, et al. MRI criteria for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: MAGNIMS consensus guidelines. Lancet Neurol 2016; 15: 292–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(15)00393-2. |
| [11] | Simon JH, Li D, Traboulsee A, Coyle PK, Arnold DL, Barkhof F, et al. Standardized MR imaging protocol for multiple sclerosis: Consortium of MS Centers consensus guidelines. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006; 27: 455–61. |
| [12] | Traboulsee A, Simon JH, Stone L, Fisher E, Jones DE, Malhotra A, et al. Revised Recommendations of the Consortium of MS Centers Task Force for a Standardized MRI Protocol and Clinical Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Follow-Up of Multiple Sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016; 37: 394–401. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A4539. |
| [13] | Tintoré M, Rovira A, Río J, Nos C, Grivé E, Sastre-Garriga J, et al. New diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: application in first demyelinating episode. Neurology 2003; 60: 27–30. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.60.1.27. |
| [14] | Miller DH, Filippi M, Fazekas F, Frederiksen JL, Matthews PM, Montalban X, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging within diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 2004; 56: 273–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.20156. |
| [15] | Rovira À, Wattjes MP, Tintoré M, Tur C, Yousry TA, Sormani MP, et al. 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. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2015.106. |
| [16] | Traboulsee A, Simon JH, Stone L, Fisher E, Jones DE, Malhotra A, et al. Revised recommendations of the consortium of MS centers task force for a standardized MRI protocol and clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and follow-up of multiple sclerosis. Am J Neuroradiol 2015. |
| [17] | Di Perri C, Dwyer MG, Wack DS, Cox JL, Hashmi K, Saluste E, et al. Signal abnormalities on 1.5 and 3 Tesla brain MRI in multiple sclerosis patients and healthy controls. A morphological and spatial quantitative comparison study. NeuroImage 2009; 47: 1352–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.04.019. |
| [18] | Fischbach F, Bruhn H. Assessment of in vivo 1H magnetic resonance spectroscopy in the liver: a review. Liver Int 2008; 28: 297–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-3231.2007.01647.x. |
| [19] | Wattjes MP, Harzheim M, Lutterbey GG, Hojati F, Simon B, Schmidt S, et al. Does high field MRI allow an earlier diagnosis of multiple sclerosis? J Neurol 2008; 255: 1159–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-008-0861-3. |
| [20] | Patzig M, Burke M, Brückmann H, Fesl G. Comparison of 3D cube FLAIR with 2D FLAIR for multiple sclerosis imaging at 3 Tesla. ROFO Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Nuklearmed 2014; 186: 484–8. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1355896. |
| [21] | Tawfik AI, Kamr WH. Diagnostic value of 3D-FLAIR magnetic resonance sequence in detection of white matter brain lesions in multiple sclerosis. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 2020; 51: 127. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43055-020-00247-6. |
| [22] | Clarke MA, Pareto D, Pessini-Ferreira L, Arrambide G, Alberich M, Crescenzo F, et al. Value of 3T Susceptibility-Weighted Imaging in the Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis. Am J Neuroradiol 2020. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A6547. |
| [23] | Ma Y-J, Jang H, Wei Z, Cai Z, Xue Y, Lee RR, et al. Myelin Imaging in Human Brain Using a Short Repetition Time Adiabatic Inversion Recovery Prepared Ultrashort Echo Time (STAIR-UTE) MRI Sequence in Multiple Sclerosis. Radiology 2020; 297: 392–404. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020200425. |
| [24] | Granziera C, Reich DS. Gadolinium should always be used to assess disease activity in MS – Yes. Mult Scler Houndmills Basingstoke Engl 2020; 26: 765–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458520911174. |
APA Style
Sultan Alamri. (2020). Adherence to MRI Protocol Consensus Guidelines in Multiple Sclerosis Patients at Taif Hospitals. International Journal of Medical Imaging, 8(4), 102-105. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijmi.20200804.16
ACS Style
Sultan Alamri. Adherence to MRI Protocol Consensus Guidelines in Multiple Sclerosis Patients at Taif Hospitals. Int. J. Med. Imaging 2020, 8(4), 102-105. doi: 10.11648/j.ijmi.20200804.16
AMA Style
Sultan Alamri. Adherence to MRI Protocol Consensus Guidelines in Multiple Sclerosis Patients at Taif Hospitals. Int J Med Imaging. 2020;8(4):102-105. doi: 10.11648/j.ijmi.20200804.16
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ijmi.20200804.16,
author = {Sultan Alamri},
title = {Adherence to MRI Protocol Consensus Guidelines in Multiple Sclerosis Patients at Taif Hospitals},
journal = {International Journal of Medical Imaging},
volume = {8},
number = {4},
pages = {102-105},
doi = {10.11648/j.ijmi.20200804.16},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijmi.20200804.16},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijmi.20200804.16},
abstract = {Background: multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects the central nervous system (CNS). Its diagnosis is characterized by foci of demyelination, disseminated over time and anatomical space, both clinically and radiologically. Consensus guidelines for the diagnosis of MS have been established to identify the proper sequences and imaging technique. Objective: this study aims to investigate the adherence of Taif hospitals to these consensus guidelines. Method: data were collected from the radiology departments of 3 main hospitals in Taif (King Abdul-Aziz Specialist Hospital, King Faisal Medical Complex, and Al-Hada Hospital for Armed Forces). The standard magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol for MS in each hospital was reviewed using the picture archiving and communication system (PACS). The comparisons were based on the strength of the magnetic field, slice thickness, slice orientation, coverage, and the MR core sequences used. Results: each Taif hospital has its own protocol, which differ from consensus guidelines. The main difference is the hospitals’ lack of 3D sequences. Another difference is the lack of inversion recovery prepared T1 sequences. Finally, for follow-up patients, no contrast administration exists in Taif hospitals. Conclusion: this study shows some major differences in the MS protocols among Taif hospitals. This is probably due to poor awareness of the guidelines in the radiology community. Neuroradiologists at Taif hospitals should ensure the recommended protocol is followed.},
year = {2020}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Adherence to MRI Protocol Consensus Guidelines in Multiple Sclerosis Patients at Taif Hospitals AU - Sultan Alamri Y1 - 2020/11/24 PY - 2020 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijmi.20200804.16 DO - 10.11648/j.ijmi.20200804.16 T2 - International Journal of Medical Imaging JF - International Journal of Medical Imaging JO - International Journal of Medical Imaging SP - 102 EP - 105 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2330-832X UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijmi.20200804.16 AB - Background: multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects the central nervous system (CNS). Its diagnosis is characterized by foci of demyelination, disseminated over time and anatomical space, both clinically and radiologically. Consensus guidelines for the diagnosis of MS have been established to identify the proper sequences and imaging technique. Objective: this study aims to investigate the adherence of Taif hospitals to these consensus guidelines. Method: data were collected from the radiology departments of 3 main hospitals in Taif (King Abdul-Aziz Specialist Hospital, King Faisal Medical Complex, and Al-Hada Hospital for Armed Forces). The standard magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol for MS in each hospital was reviewed using the picture archiving and communication system (PACS). The comparisons were based on the strength of the magnetic field, slice thickness, slice orientation, coverage, and the MR core sequences used. Results: each Taif hospital has its own protocol, which differ from consensus guidelines. The main difference is the hospitals’ lack of 3D sequences. Another difference is the lack of inversion recovery prepared T1 sequences. Finally, for follow-up patients, no contrast administration exists in Taif hospitals. Conclusion: this study shows some major differences in the MS protocols among Taif hospitals. This is probably due to poor awareness of the guidelines in the radiology community. Neuroradiologists at Taif hospitals should ensure the recommended protocol is followed. VL - 8 IS - 4 ER -
Email: