Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 398

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Definition and Consensus Diagnostic Criteria for Neurosarcoidosis: From the Neurosarcoidosis Consortium Consensus Group

Stern, Barney J., Royal, Walter, Gelfand, Jeffrey M., Clifford, David B., Tavee, Jinny, Pawate, Siddharama, Berger, Joseph R., Aksamit, Allen J., Krumholz, Allan, Pardo, Carlos A., Moller, David R., Judson, Marc A., Drent, Marjolein, Baughman, Robert P.·2018·JAMA Neurology

Abstract

Importance: The Neurosarcoidosis Consortium Consensus Group, an expert panel of physicians experienced in the management of patients with sarcoidosis and neurosarcoidosis, engaged in an iterative process to define neurosarcoidosis and develop a practical diagnostic approach to patients with suspected neurosarcoidosis. This panel aimed to develop a consensus clinical definition of neurosarcoidosis to enhance the clinical care of patients with suspected neurosarcoidosis and to encourage standardization of research initiatives that address this disease. Observations: The work of this collaboration included a review of the manifestations of neurosarcoidosis and the establishment of an approach to the diagnosis of this disorder. The proposed consensus diagnostic criteria, which reflect current knowledge, provide definitions for possible, probable, and definite central and peripheral nervous system sarcoidosis. The definitions emphasize the need to evaluate patients with findings suggestive of neurosarcoidosis for alternate causal factors, including infection and malignant neoplasm. Also emphasized is the need for biopsy, whenever feasible and advisable according to clinical context and affected anatomy, of nonneural tissue to document the presence of systemic sarcoidosis and support a diagnosis of probable neurosarcoidosis or of neural tissue to support a diagnosis of definite neurosarcoidosis. Conclusions and Relevance: Diverse disease presentations and lack of specificity of relevant diagnostic tests contribute to diagnostic uncertainty. This uncertainty is compounded by the absence of a pathognomonic histologic tissue examination. The diagnostic criteria we propose are designed to focus investigations on NS as accurately as possible, recognizing that multiple pathophysiologic pathways may lead to the clinical manifestations we currently term NS. Research recognizing the clinical heterogeneity of this diagnosis may open the door to identifying meaningful biologic factors that may ultimately contribute to better treatments.

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/jamaneurol.2018.2295

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 398

Metadata

Authors
Stern, B. J., Royal, W., Gelfand, J. M., Clifford, D. B., Tavee, J., Pawate, S., Berger, J. R., Aksamit, A. J., Krumholz, A., Pardo, C. A., Moller, D. R., Judson, M. A., Drent, M., & Baughman, R. P.
Venue
JAMA Neurology
Published
2018-12-01
Volume
75
Issue
12
Pages
1546
ISSN
2168-6149 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2888794374
Cited by
398
References
1
FWCI
19.00
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: Definition and Consensus Diagnostic Criteria for Neurosarcoidosis: From the Neurosarcoidosis Consortium Consensus Group. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.2295
The paper
Stern, B. J., Royal, W., Gelfand, J. M., Clifford, D. B., Tavee, J., Pawate, S., Berger, J. R., Aksamit, A. J., Krumholz, A., Pardo, C. A., Moller, D. R., Judson, M. A., Drent, M., & Baughman, R. P. (2018). Definition and Consensus Diagnostic Criteria for Neurosarcoidosis: From the Neurosarcoidosis Consortium Consensus Group. JAMA Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.2295

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.