Cited by 627Multiple Sclerosis Research StudiesPeripheral Neuropathies and DisordersInfectious Diseases and Tuberculosis

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Recommended Standard of Cerebrospinal Fluid Analysis in the Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis: A Consensus Statement

Abstract

New criteria for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS) were published as the result of an internationally formed committee. To increase the specificity of diagnosis and to minimize the number of false diagnoses, the committee recommended the use of both clinical and paraclinical criteria, the latter involving information obtained from magnetic resonance imaging, evoked potentials, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis. Although rigorous magnetic resonance imaging requirements were provided, the "new criteria paper" fell short in terms of guidelines as to how the CSF analysis should be performed and simply equated the IgG index with isoelectric focusing, without any justification. The spectrum of parameters analyzed and methods for CSF analysis differ worldwide and often yield variable results in terms of sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and reliability, with no decided "optimal" CSF test for the diagnosis of MS. To address this question specifically, an international panel of experts in MS and CSF diagnostic techniques was convened and the result was this article, representing a consensus of all the participants. These recommendations for establishing a standard for the evaluation of CSF in patients suspected of having MS should greatly complement the new criteria in ensuring that a correct diagnosis of MS is being made.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archneur.62.6.865

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 34 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 601–627 of 627

Metadata

Authors
Freedman, M. S., Thompson, E. J., Deisenhammer, F., Giovannoni, G., Grimsley, G., Keir, G., Öhman, S., Racke, M. K., Sharief, M., Sindic, C. J. M., Sellebjerg, F., & Tourtellotte, W. W.
Affiliations
University of Ottawa (CA)
Venue
Archives of Neurology
Published
2005-06-01
Volume
62
Issue
6
ISSN
0003-9942 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2123646700
Cited by
41
References
34
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Archives of Neurology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Peripheral Neuropathies and Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Infectious Diseases and Tuberculosis
Keywords
multiple sclerosis, cerebrospinal fluid analysis, diagnostic criteria, IgG index, isoelectric focusing, magnetic resonance imaging, evoked potentials, diagnostic standardization, false diagnosis

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