Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 703

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, multiphasic disseminated encephalomyelitis and multiple sclerosis in children

Dale, R. C.·2000·Brain

Abstract

Forty-eight children with disseminated demyelination of the CNS, 28 with acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM), seven with multiphasic disseminated encephalomyelitis (MDEM) and 13 with multiple sclerosis were studied for a mean follow-up period of 5.64 years. The presentation findings of the ADEM/MDEM group were compared with those of the multiple sclerosis group. The following findings were more commonly seen in ADEM/MDEM presentation compared with the multiple sclerosis presentations: predemyelinating infectious disease (74 versus 38%, P: < 0.05); polysymptomatic presentation (91 versus 38%, P: < 0.002); pyramidal signs (71 versus 23%, P: < 0.01); encephalopathy (69 versus 15%, P: < 0.002); and bilateral optic neuritis (23 versus 8%, not significant). Seizures occurred only in the ADEM/MDEM group (17 versus 0%, not significant). Unilateral optic neuritis occurred only in the multiple sclerosis patients (23 versus 0%, P: < 0.01). There were no differences in the frequencies of transverse myelitis, brainstem involvement, cerebellar signs and sensory disturbance between the two groups. ADEM/MDEM patients were more likely to have blood leucocytosis (64 versus 22%, P: < 0.05), CSF lymphocytosis (64 versus 42%, not significant) and CSF protein elevation (60 versus 33%, not significant). Patients presenting with multiple sclerosis were more likely to have intrathecal synthesis of oligoclonal bands on presentation (64 versus 29%, not significant). MRI showed that subcortical white matter lesions were almost universal in both groups, though periventricular lesions were more common in multiple sclerosis (92 versus 44%, P: < 0.01). By contrast, in ADEM/MDEM there was absolute and relative periventricular sparing in 56 and 78% of patients, respectively. Follow-up MRI revealed complete or partial lesion resolution in 90% and no new lesions in the ADEM/MDEM group. All of the multiple sclerosis patients had new lesions on repeat MRI (five during relapse and six during asymptomatic convalescent phases). The outcome in the ADEM patients was mixed; 57% of patients made a complete recovery. The mean follow-up for the 35 ADEM/MDEM patients was 5.78 years (range 1.0-15.4 years). Eight of the 13 multiple sclerosis patients relapsed within the first year; 11 had a relapsing-remitting course, one a primary progressive course and one a secondary progressive course. These differences in the presentation of ADEM/MDEM compared with multiple sclerosis may help in the prognosis given to families regarding the possibility of later development of multiple sclerosis.

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 · 10.1093/brain/123.12.2407

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.

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

Cited by

See all 703

Metadata

Authors
Dale, R. C.
Venue
Brain
Published
2000-12-01
Volume
123
Issue
12
Pages
2407-2422
ISSN
  • 0006-8950 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2156
OpenAlex
W2097275624
Cited by
703
References
0
FWCI
11.84
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: Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, multiphasic disseminated encephalomyelitis and multiple sclerosis in children. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/brain/123.12.2407
The paper
Dale, R. C. (2000). Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, multiphasic disseminated encephalomyelitis and multiple sclerosis in children. Brain. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/123.12.2407

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.