Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 213

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

What Is the Accuracy of the Clinical Diagnosis of Multiple System Atrophy?: A Clinicopathologic Study

Litvan, Irene·1997·Archives of Neurology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The presentation of symptoms for multiple system atrophy (MSA) varies. Because there are no specific markers for its clinical diagnosis, the diagnosis rests on the results of the neuropathologic examination. Despite several clinicopathologic studies, the diagnostic accuracy for MSA is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine the accuracy for the clinical diagnosis of MSA and to identify, as early as possible, those features that would best predict MSA. DESIGN: One hundred five autopsy-confirmed cases of MSA and related disorders (MSA [n=16], non-MSA [n=89]) were presented as clinical vignettes to 6 neurologists (raters) who were unaware of the study design. Raters identified the main clinical features and provided a diagnosis based on descriptions of the patients' first and last clinic visits. METHODS: Interrater reliability was evaluated with the use of kappa statistics. Raters' diagnoses and those of the primary neurologists (who followed up the patients) were compared with the autopsy-confirmed diagnoses to estimate the sensitivity and positive predictive values at the patients' first and last visits. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine the best predictors to diagnose MSA. RESULTS: For the first visit (median, 42 months after the onset of symptoms), the raters' sensitivity (median, 56%; range, 50%-69%) and positive predictive values (median, 76%; range, 61%-91%) for the clinical diagnosis of MSA were not optimal. For the last visit (74 months after the onset of symptoms), the raters' sensitivity (median, 69%; range, 56%-94%) and positive predictive values (median, 80%; range, 77%-92%) improved. Primary neurologists correctly identified 25% and 50% of the patients with MSA at the first and last visits, respectively. False-negative and -positive misdiagnoses frequently occurred in patients with Parkinson disease and progressive supranuclear palsy. Early severe autonomic failure, absence of cognitive impairment, early cerebellar symptoms, and early gait disturbances were identified as the best predictive features to diagnose MSA. CONCLUSIONS: The low sensitivity for the clinical diagnosis of MSA, particularly among neurologists who followed up these patients in the tertiary centers, suggests that this disorder is underdiagnosed. The misdiagnosis of MSA is usually due to its confusion with Parkinson disease or progressive supranuclear palsy, thus compromising the research on all 3 disorders.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archneur.1997.00550200007003

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 213

Metadata

Authors
Litvan, I.
Venue
Archives of Neurology
Published
1997-08-01
Volume
54
Issue
8
Pages
937
ISSN
0003-9942 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2162337683
Cited by
213
References
5
FWCI
4.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: What Is the Accuracy of the Clinical Diagnosis of Multiple System Atrophy?: A Clinicopathologic Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archneur.1997.00550200007003
The paper
Litvan, I. (1997). What Is the Accuracy of the Clinical Diagnosis of Multiple System Atrophy?: A Clinicopathologic Study. Archives of Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.1997.00550200007003

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.