Cited by 3Multiple Sclerosis Research StudiesClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsPeripheral Neuropathies and Disorders

Diagnostic revisions in multiple sclerosis

de Seabra, Mafalda M. L., Abreu, Pedro M. P., Mendonça, Maria T. S., Reis, Joaquim J. C. S., Sá, Maria J. P. M., Guimarães Ferreira Almeida, Joana C.·2020·Clinical and Experimental Neuroimmunology

Abstract

Objectives: The diagnostic criteria for inflammatory demyelinating diseases of the central nervous system have evolved over the past years. Close follow up and accurate multiple sclerosis (MS) diagnosis are key to optimal treatment. We retrospectively reviewed the patients who had a diagnostic revision. Methods: The medical records of patients referred to our MS clinic (Centro Hospitalar Universitário de São João, Porto, Portugal) (n = 635) between 2009 and 2016 were reviewed. A total of 62 patients were identified, 44 were misdiagnosed with MS; 18 had another diagnosis, later redefined as MS. A total of 44 controls (with MS diagnosis) were matched to the 44 misdiagnosed cases, and a statistical analysis was carried out to determine the predictors of misdiagnosis. Results: The mean age of our population (n = 44) was 51 ± 11 years; 77% were women. The mean duration of misdiagnosis was 13 years. Optic neuritis was the most frequent presenting symptom (25%), followed by spinal cord syndrome and non‐specific neurological symptoms (20% each). The most frequent MS misdiagnoses were non‐specific white matter hyperintensities, optic neuritis and cerebrovascular disease. The mean Extended Disability Status Scale and Multiple Sclerosis Severity Score was 0 (SD 2) and 0.6 (SD 2), respectively, in the misdiagnosed group, and 3.5 (SD 5.4) and 3.2 (SD 5.6), respectively, in the control group. From all the variables analyzed, we found that the presence of black holes and spinal cord lesions were predictors of a correct MS diagnosis (P < 0,05). Conclusions: Our series underlines the need to continuously rethink an MS diagnosis and to thoughtfully use paraclinical tests (oligoclonal bands and magnetic resonance imaging) avoiding an unfounded diagnosis. The first event might not be atypical, as has been reported in other series.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/cen3.12586

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
de Seabra, M. M. L., Abreu, P. M. P., Mendonça, M. T. S., Reis, J. J. C. S., Sá, M. J. P. M., & Guimarães Ferreira Almeida, J. C.
Affiliations
  • Department of Neurology Centro Hospitalar de São João Porto Portugal
  • Universidade do Porto (PT)
  • Hospital de São João (PT)
Venue
Clinical and Experimental Neuroimmunology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-05-13
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
171-175
ISSN
1759-1961 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3015392577
Cited by
3
References
2
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2021: 1
FWCI
0.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Clinical and Experimental Neuroimmunology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Peripheral Neuropathies and Disorders
Keywords
multiple sclerosis, misdiagnosis, diagnostic revision, diagnostic criteria, optic neuritis, black holes, spinal cord lesions, white matter hyperintensities, cerebrovascular disease, oligoclonal bands, magnetic resonance imaging, disability status

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