Table 3.
Quality assessment of reported literature PRL reliabilities. Studies were assessed for quality of reported reliability data using modified criteria of the NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies.
| Question | Was rater experience (i.e. years) provided? | Was rater level of training (e.g. neurologist, neuroradiologist, etc.) provided? | Was PRL classification criteria defined? (Number criteria listed) | Was information on MS disease course (i.e. RRMS, PMS, etc.) provided for the reliability analysis cohort? | Was sample size for the reliability cohort given? | (For intra-rater reliability) Was time between classifications reported? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hagemeier et al. (2012) | X | X | ✓ (2) |
✓ | ✓ | X |
| Kuchling et al. (2014) | X | X | X | X | ✓ | ✓ |
| Sinnecker et al. (2016) | X | X | X | X | ✓ | N/A |
| Dal-Bianco et al. (2017) | X | ✓ | ✓ (3) |
X | ✓ | X |
| Absinta et al. (2018) | X | ✓ | ✓ (2) |
✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Barquero et al. (2020) | ✓ | X | ✓ (2) |
✓ | ✓ | N/A |
| Clarke et al. (2020) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ (6) |
X | ✓ | N/A |
| Maggi et al. (2020) | X | X | ✓ (2) |
X | ✓ | N/A |
| Dal-Bianco et al. (2021) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ (4) |
X | ✓ | X |
| Kolb et al. (2021) | X | ✓ | X | X | ✓ | ✓ |
| Maggi et al. (2021) | X | X | ✓ (2) |
✓ | ✓ | N/A |
| Treaba et al. (2021) | X | ✓ | ✓ (2) |
X | ✓ | X |
| Altokhis et al. (2022) | X | X | ✓ (3) |
X | ✓ | X |
| Hemond et al. (2022) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ (3) |
✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Huang et al. (2022) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ (2) |
✓ | ✓ | N/A |
| Krajnc et al. (2022) | X | X | ✓ (3) |
✓ | ✓ | N/A |
| Marcille et al. (2022) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ (3) |
✓ | ✓ | N/A |
| Meaton et al. (2022) | X | X | ✓ (4) |
X | ✓ | X |
| Micheletti et al. (2022) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ (3) |
✓ | ✓ | N/A |
| Zhang et al. (2022) | X | X | X | ✓ | ✓ | N/A |
| Calvi et al. (2023) | X | X | ✓ (6) |
X | ✓ | N/A |
| Krajnc et al. (2023) | X | X | ✓ (4) |
✓ | ✓ | N/A |
PRL – paramagnetic rim lesion; RRMS – relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis; PMS –progressive multiple sclerosis.