Abstract:As a result of technical developments and greater availability of imaging equipment, the number of neuroradiological examinations is steadily increasing [1]. Due to improved image quality and sensitivity, more details can be detected making reporting more complex and time-intensive. At the same time, reliable algorithms increasingly allow quantitative image analysis that should be integrated in reports in a standardized manner. Moreover, increasing digitalization is resulting in a decrease in the personal exchange between neuroradiologists and referring disciplines, thereby making communication more difficult. The introduction of structured reporting tailored to the specific disease and medical issue [2, 3] and corresponding to at least the second reporting level as defined by the German Radiological Society (https://www.befundung.drg.de/de-DE/2908/strukturierte-befundung/) is therefore desirable to ensure that the quality standards of neuroradiological reports continue to be met.The advantages of structured reporting include a reduced workload for neuroradiologists and an information gain for referring physicians. A complete and standardized list with relevant details for image reporting is provided to neuroradiologists in accordance with the current state of knowledge, thereby ensuring that important points are not forgotten [4]. A time savings and increase in efficiency during reporting were also seen [5]. Further advantages include report clarity and consistency and better comparability in follow-up examinations regardless of the neuroradiologist's particular reporting style. This results in better communication with the referring disciplines and makes clinical decision significantly easier [6, 7]. Although the advantages are significant, any potential disadvantages like the reduction of autonomy in reporting and inadequate coverage of all relevant details and any incidental findings not associated with the main pathology in complex cases or in rare diseases should be taken into consideration [4]. Therefore, studies examining the advantages of structured reporting, promoting the introduction of this system in the clinical routine, and increasing the acceptance among neuroradiologists are still needed.Numerous specific templates for structured reporting, e. g., regarding diseases in cardiology and oncology, are already available on the website www.befundung.drg.de . Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an idiopathic chronic inflammatory and neurodegenerative disease of the central nervous system and is the most common non-trauma-based inflammatory neurological disease in young adults. Therefore, it has significant individual and socioeconomic relevance [8]. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plays an important role in the diagnosis, prognosis evaluation, and follow-up of this disease. MRI is established as the central diagnostic method in the diagnostic criteria. Therefore, specific changes are seen on MRI in almost all patients with a verified MS diagnosis [9]. Reporting of MRI datasets regarding the brain and spinal cord of patients with MS includes examination of the images with respect to the relevant medical issue in order to determine whether the McDonald criteria, which were revised in 2017 [10] and define dissemination in time and space clinically as well as with respect to MRI based on the recommendations of the MAGNIMS groups [11, 12], are fulfilled. A more precise definition of lesion types and locations according to the recommendations of an international expert group [13] is discussed in the supplementary material. Spinal cord signal abnormalities are seen in up to 92 % of MS patients [14-16] and are primarily located in the cervical spine [15]. The recommendations of the MAGNIMS-CMSC-NAIMS working group published in 2021 [11] explicitly recommend the use of structured reporting for MS patients.Therefore, a reporting template for evaluating MRI examinations of the brain and spinal cord of patients with MS was created as part of the BMBF-funded DIFUTURE consortium in consensus with neuroradiological and neurological experts in concordance with the recommendations mentioned above [11] and was made available for broad use (https://github.com/DRGagit/ak_befundung). The goal is to facilitate efficient and comprehensive evaluation of patients with MS in the primary diagnostic workup and follow-up imaging. These reporting templates are consensus-based recommendations and do not make any claim to general validity or completeness. The information technology working group (@GIT) of the German Radiological Society and the German Society for Neuroradiology strive to keep the reporting templates presented here up-to-date with respect to new research data and recommendations of the MAGNIMS-CMSC-NAIMS group [11]. KEY POINTS:: · consensus-based reporting templates. · template for the structured reporting of MRI examinations of patients with multiple sclerosis. · structured reporting might facilitate communication between neuroradiologists and referring disciplines. CITATION FORMAT: · Riederer I, Mühlau M, Wiestler B et al. Structured Reporting in Multiple Sclerosis - Consensus-Based Reporting Templates for Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain and Spinal Cord. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2023; 195: 135 - 138.

Commercial volumetric MRI reporting tools in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review of the evidence

Technical and clinical validation of commercial automated volumetric MRI tools for dementia diagnosis—a systematic review

Automated quantitative MRI volumetry reports support diagnostic interpretation in dementia: a multi-rater, clinical accuracy study

Addition of quantitative MRI to the routine clinical care of patients with multiple sclerosis—Results from the MAGNON project

A real-world clinical validation for AI-based MRI monitoring in multiple sclerosis

Automated Volumetric Software in Dementia: Help or Hindrance to the Neuroradiologist?

Magnetic resonance imaging-based biomarkers of multiple sclerosis and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Improved Detection, Description and Efficiency of Multiple Sclerosis Lesions’ Assessment Using a Dedicated Software

Quantitative susceptibility mapping in multiple sclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Using quantitative MRI to track cerebral damage in multiple sclerosis: a longitudinal study

An Integrated Mri And Mrs Approach To Evaluation Of Multiple Sclerosis With Cognitive Impairment

Quantifying the Metabolic Signature of Multiple Sclerosis by in vivo Proton Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy: Current Challenges and Future Outlook in the Translation From Proton Signal to Diagnostic Biomarker

Clinical Feasibility of Brain Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping.

Structured Reporting in Multiple Sclerosis - Consensus-Based Reporting Templates for Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain and Spinal Cord

Typical and Emerging Diagnostic MRI Features in Multiple Sclerosis

Mri Volumetric Analysis of Multiple Sclerosis: Methodology and Validation

Lifestyle management and brain MRI metrics in female Australian adults living with multiple sclerosis: a feasibility and acceptability study

A Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Methods to Assess Multiple Sclerosis Lesions: Implications for Patient Characterization and Clinical Trial Design

Brain atrophy assessment in multiple sclerosis: technical- and subject-related barriers for translation to real-world application in individual subjects

Current and future role of MRI in the diagnosis and prognosis of multiple sclerosis

Multicenter automated central vein sign detection performs as well as manual assessment for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis