The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The natural history of multiple sclerosis
Open accessAbstract
The course of multiple sclerosis (MS) results from the interplay of two clinical processes, relapses and progression. Three main clinical forms may be identified as relapsing-remitting, secondary progressive and primary progressive. The disease appears on average at the age of 30 and follows a remitting or a progressive course in 85% and 15% of the cases, respectively. Initial symptoms are related to an isolated or combined disturbance(s) of the long tracts of the central nervous system, of the brainstem, or of the optic nerve in 70%, 20% and 25% of the cases, respectively. The relapse rate is one relapse on average every other year. After an exacerbating-remitting onset of MS, secondary progression appears after 19 years on average. The median time to reach the landmarks of irreversible disability are 8 years regarding limitation of ambulation, 20 years for walking with a stick, and 30 years for wheel-chair dependency. In fact, MS prognosis is highly variable depending on individuals. All the intermediate types do exist between malignant forms, possibly lethal, and benign forms (circa 30% of the cases) that allow normal daily life. The clinical and paraclinical predictive factors identified so far have been acknowledged statistically. They provide little help however, if any, when an individual is concerned. Recent research has showed that relapses have only a marginal effect, relatively to progression, on the accumulation of irreversible neurological disability. Furthermore, the age when reaching the landmarks of irreversible disability is essentially similar whatever the mode of onset of MS, be it exacerbating-remitting or progressive. In spite of the outstanding clinical polymorphism of MS, a unifying concept of the disease ("complexity vs heterogeneity") can be put forward.
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.
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 cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“The largest single risk factor for MS is biological sex, with > 75% of patients being female – but the causes for this discrepancy in incidence are unknown.73”
From Genome‐wide association studies of multiple sclerosis (2018) · cites this paper as [73]
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The largest single risk factor for MS is biological sex, with > 75% of patients being female – but the causes for this discrepancy in incidence are unknown.73”
From Genome‐wide association studies of multiple sclerosis (2018) · cites this paper as [73]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“MS is also a remarkably heterogeneous disease, with some patients declining rapidly and others showing few or no symptoms for decades.73”
From Genome‐wide association studies of multiple sclerosis (2018) · cites this paper as [73]
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
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Natural history of multiple sclerosis: a unifying concept
Confavreux, C., & Vukusic, S. (2006) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/awl007 · Cited by 901
Self-citationThe natural history of multiple sclerosis with childhood onset
Renoux, C., Vukusic, S., & Confavreux, C. (2008) · Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery · doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2008.04.009 · Cited by 450
Self-citationSecondary progressive multiple sclerosis: current knowledge and future challenges
Rovaris, M., Confavreux, C., Furlan, R., Kappos, L., Comi, G., & Filippi, M. (2006) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(06)70410-0 · Cited by 304
Self-citationNew perspectives in the natural history of multiple sclerosis
Tremlett, H. L., Zhao, Y., Rieckmann, P., & Hutchinson, M. (2010) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.0b013e3181e3973f · Cited by 260
The Canadian Cooperative Multiple Sclerosis Study Group (1991) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/0140-6736(91)93389-q · Cited by 256
Metadata
- Authors
- Confavreux, C., & Compston, A.
- Affiliations
- Inserm (FR)
- ORCID
- Compston, Alastair
- Venue
- McAlpine's Multiple Sclerosis
- Publisher
- Elsevier
- Published
- 2006
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 183-272
- PMC
- PMC7173457
- OpenAlex
- W111819890
- Cited by
- 166
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 62.74
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Elsevier eBooks (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Polyomavirus and related diseases
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Peripheral Neuropathies and Disorders
- Keywords
- multiple sclerosis, clinical course, relapse, disease progression, relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, secondary progressive multiple sclerosis, primary progressive multiple sclerosis, disability progression, prognosis, predictive factors, disease heterogeneity
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Multiple Sclerosis, Prognosis, Disease Progression
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