The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Will Rogers phenomenon in multiple sclerosis
Abstract
Objective Using different criteria for classifying patients into various stages of a disease can modify the stage-specific prognosis, even though the overall disease course remains unchanged. This is known as the "Will Rogers phenomenon," precluding the use of historical controls for treatment trials. We assessed whether the Will Rogers phenomenon may affect multiple sclerosis (MS) prognosis when applying different diagnostic criteria. Methods Patients with a clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) suggestive of MS were studied. After 1 year, each patient was classified as CIS or evolved to MS according to two diagnostic criteria (Poser and McDonald). The outcome for prognosis was the time to reach an Expanded Disability Status Scale score > or = 3.0. Results 309 patients were studied for a median period of 84 months. After 1 year, 16% of patients had MS according to Poser and 44% according to McDonald criteria. The probability to reach Expanded Disability Status Scale score > or = 3.0 at median follow-up was 11% in CIS patients according to Poser and 7% according to McDonald criteria; it was 46% in MS patients according to Poser and 27% acccording to McDonald criteria. The group with a discordant diagnosis had a worse prognosis than that of CIS patients according to both criteria (p = 0.01), but better than that of MS patients according to both criteria (p = 0.01). Interpretation The use of different diagnostic criteria may generate spurious improvements in the medium-term progno…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
The changes to the diagnostic criteria may be favourably shifting the apparent long-term outcome of MS (the so called 'Will Rogers phenomenon'), independent of any effect of disease-modifying treatments.
“The changes to the diagnostic criteria may be favourably shifting the apparent long-term outcome of MS (the so called”
From Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: progress and challenges (2017) · cites this paper as [72]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 23
- 10.1056/NEJM198506203122504 · DOI
- 10.1093/jnci/dji248 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00259-007-0506-2 · DOI
- 10.1191/1352458505ms1231oa · DOI
- 10.1002/ana.1025 · DOI
- 10.1002/ana.1032 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/ana.20703 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/ana.410130302 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1212/WNL.60.1.27 · DOI
- 10.1016/S1474-4422(07)70176-X · DOI
- 10.1212/01.wnl.0000237354.10144.ec · DOI
- 10.1136/jnnp.57.8.897 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1212/WNL.33.11.1444 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1056/NEJM200009283431307 · DOI
- 10.1001/archneur.1983.04050100044018 · DOI
- Noseworthy JH, 2003, Multiple sclerosis therapeutics, 319
- 10.1212/01.wnl.0000275545.08382.82 · DOI
- 10.1056/NEJMoa044397 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61194-5 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)03334-0 · DOI
- 10.1002/ana.20363 · DOI
- 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19981015)17:19<2265::AID-SIM918>3.0.CO;2-B · DOI
- 10.1212/01.WNL.0000156155.19270.F8 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria
Polman, C. H., Reingold, S. C., Banwell, B., Clanet, M., Cohen, J. A., Filippi, M., Fujihara, K., Havrdova, E., Hutchinson, M., Kappos, L., et al. (2011) · Annals of Neurology · doi:10.1002/ana.22366 · Cited by 9,802
Self-citationDiagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria
Thompson, A. J., Banwell, B. L., Barkhof, F., Carroll, W. M., Coetzee, T., Comi, G., Correale, J., Fazekas, F., Filippi, M., Freedman, M. S., et al. (2018) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(17)30470-2 · Cited by 8,167
Self-citationDiagnosis of multiple sclerosis: progress and challenges
Brownlee, W. J., Hardy, T. A., Fazekas, F., & Miller, D. H. (2017) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(16)30959-x · Cited by 701
MS, MRI, and the 2010 McDonald criteria: A Canadian expert commentary
Selchen, D., Bhan, V., Blevins, G., Devonshire, V., Duquette, P., Grand’Maison, F., Kremenchutzky, M., Lapierre, Y., Li, D., von Riedemann, S. J., et al. (2012) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.0b013e318277d144 · Cited by 25
Metadata
- Authors
- Sormani, M. P., Tintorè, M., Rovaris, M., Rovira, A., Vidal, X., Bruzzi, P., Filippi, M., & Montalban, X.
- Affiliations
- IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele (IT)
- Vall d'Hebron Hospital Universitari (ES)
- Corresponding author
- Filippi, Massimo
- Venue
- Annals of Neurology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-10
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 428-433
- ISSN
- 0364-5134 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-8249
- OpenAlex
- W2156057015
- Cited by
- 104
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 3.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Annals of Neurology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- CINECA IRIS Institutial Research Information System (University of Genoa) (submittedVersion)
- Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca - Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Keywords
- Will Rogers phenomenon, multiple sclerosis, clinically isolated syndrome, diagnostic criteria, Poser criteria, McDonald criteria, disease progression, Expanded Disability Status Scale, prognosis, historical controls, treatment trials
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Diagnosis, Differential, Disability Evaluation, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Multiple Sclerosis, Neurologic Examination, Retrospective Studies, Disease Progression, Young Adult
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