The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Clinical Features of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis According to the El Escorial and Airlie House Diagnostic Criteria: A Population-Based Study
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The El Escorial and the revised Airlie House diagnostic criteria for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) classify patients into categories reflecting different levels of diagnostic certainty. We conducted a prospective, population-based study of the natural course of ALS in the Republic of Ireland during a 6-year period to examine the utility of these ALS diagnostic criteria. METHODS: Using data from the Irish ALS Register, we studied the clinical features of all patients diagnosed as having ALS in Ireland throughout their illness. RESULTS: Between 1993 and 1998, 388 patients were diagnosed as having ALS. Forty percent of patients reported bulbar-onset symptoms. Disease progression occurred over time: at last follow-up, 75% of all patients had bulbar signs, compared with 59% at diagnosis. When the El Escorial criteria were applied, more than half of patients (218 [56%]) had definite or probable ALS at diagnosis. Of the 165 possible and suspected ALS cases at diagnosis (trial ineligible), 110 (67%) were trial eligible at last follow-up. Of the 254 patients who had died, 229 (90%) had definite or probable ALS, whereas 25 patients (10%) remained trial ineligible at death. El Escorial category at diagnosis was not a significant prognostic indicator. Use of the Airlie House criteria had no effect on the median time from symptom onset to trial eligibility (12.9 vs 12.8 months). CONCLUSIONS: The El Escorial and Airlie House diagnostic criteria are excessively restrictive. Furthermore, levels of diagnostic certainty cannot be used as prognostic indicators. Arch Neurol. 2000;57:1171-1176
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Kiernan, M. C., Vucic, S., Cheah, B. C., Turner, M. R., Eisen, A., Hardiman, O., Burrell, J. R., & Zoing, M. C. (2011) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(10)61156-7 · Cited by 2,603
Self-citationPrognostic factors in ALS: A critical review
Chiò, A., Logroscino, G., Hardiman, O., Swingler, R., Mitchell, D., Beghi, E., Traynor, B. G., & On Behalf of the Eurals Consortium (2009) · Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis · doi:10.3109/17482960802566824 · Cited by 1,172
Self-citationIncidence of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in Europe
Logroscino, G., Traynor, B. J., Hardiman, O., Chio, A., Mitchell, D., Swingler, R. J., Millul, A., Benn, E., Beghi, E., & EURALS, F. (2010) · Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · doi:10.1136/jnnp.2009.183525 · Cited by 772
Self-citationEarly symptom progression rate is related to ALS outcome: A prospective population-based study
Chiò, A., Mora, G., Leone, M., Mazzini, L., Cocito, D., Giordana, M. T., Bottacchi, E., & Mutani, R. (2002) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.59.1.99 · Cited by 266
Awaji Criteria for the Diagnosis of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: A Systematic Review
Costa, J., Swash, M., & de Carvalho, M. (2012) · Archives of Neurology · doi:10.1001/archneurol.2012.254 · Cited by 249
Metadata
- Authors
- Traynor, B. J., Codd, M. B., Corr, B., Forde, C., Frost, E., & Hardiman, O. M.
- Venue
- Archives of Neurology
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2000-08-01
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1171
- ISSN
- 0003-9942
- OpenAlex
- W2027642829
- Cited by
- 380
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.12
- 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: Clinical Features of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis According to the El Escorial and Airlie House Diagnostic Criteria: A Population-Based Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archneur.57.8.1171
- The paper
- Traynor, B. J., Codd, M. B., Corr, B., Forde, C., Frost, E., & Hardiman, O. M. (2000). Clinical Features of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis According to the El Escorial and Airlie House Diagnostic Criteria: A Population-Based Study. Archives of Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.57.8.1171
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.