The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Clinical patterns of neurological involvement in Behçet's disease: evaluation of 200 patients
Abstract
In order to define the patterns of neurological involvement in Behçet's disease and to assess prognostic factors, 558 files of the neuro-Behçet out-patient clinic were reviewed. Those patients without any evidence of objective neurological involvement as well as the patients with other possible explanations for the neurological picture, and cases not fulfilling the criteria for Behçet's disease were excluded. The remaining 200 cases (155 male, 45 female) were evaluated: 162 had parenchymal CNS involvement (brainstem or 'brainstem +' involvement in 51%, spinal cord involvement in 14%, hemispheric involvement in 15% and isolated pyramidal signs in 19%) while 38 had secondary or non-parenchymal CNS involvement. In the first group the most common findings were pyramidal signs, hemiparesis, behavioural changes and sphincter disturbance, whereas in the second group the syndrome of raised intracranial pressure due to dural sinus thrombosis was the main clinical manifestation. In 60% of the cases with parenchymal involvement, CSF was hypercellular and/or had an elevated protein level, whereas in cases with non-parenchymal involvement the CSF was usually normal except for the elevated pressure. In more than half of the patients with parenchymal involvement, MRI showed brainstem and/or basal ganglion lesions. Forty-one per cent of the cases had a course with at least one attack and remission, another 28% also had attack(s) but showed secondary progression, 10% had primary progression and 21% had silent neurological involvement. Survival analysis was performed in patients who had at least a 3-year duration of neurological disease. Parenchymal involvement, elevated protein and/or pleocytosis in the CSF, 'brainstem +' type involvement, primary or secondary progressive course and relapse during steroid tapering were all associated with a poorer prognosis.
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
Behçet's disease – a contemporary review
Mendes, D., Correia, M., Barbedo, M., Vaio, T., Mota, M., Gonçalves, O., & Valente, J. (2009) · Journal of Autoimmunity · doi:10.1016/j.jaut.2009.02.011 · Cited by 320
Jarrin, I., Sellier, P., Lopes, A., Morgand, M., Makovec, T., Delcey, V., Champion, K., Simoneau, G., Green, A., Mouly, S., et al. (2016) · Medicine · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000002372 · Cited by 92
Primary angiitis of the central nervous system
Molloy, E. S., & Hajj-Ali, R. A. (2007) · Current Treatment Options in Neurology · doi:10.1007/bf02938406 · Cited by 39
Gender differences in Behçet’s disease associated uveitis
Ucar-Comlekoglu, D., Fox, A., & Sen, H. N. (2014) · Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1155/2014/820710 · Cited by 37
Metadata
- Authors
- Akman-Demir, G., Serdaroglu, P., & Tasçi, B.
- Venue
- Brain
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1999-11
- Volume
- 122
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 2171-2182
- ISSN
- 0006-8950 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2156
- OpenAlex
- W2152044506
- Cited by
- 793
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.42
- 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 patterns of neurological involvement in Behçet's disease: evaluation of 200 patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/brain/122.11.2171
- The paper
- Akman-Demir, G., Serdaroglu, P., & Tasçi, B. (1999). Clinical patterns of neurological involvement in Behçet's disease: evaluation of 200 patients. Brain. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/122.11.2171
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.