The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Doctors and patients don't agree: cross sectional study of patients' and doctors' perceptions and assessments of disability in multiple sclerosis
Open accessAbstract
Objectives: To compare the judgments of clinicians on which domains of health in the short form questionnaire (SF-36) would be most important to patients with multiple sclerosis with the opinions of patients themselves; to compare assessment of physical disability in multiple sclerosis by a clinician using Kurtzke's expanded disability status scale and a non-clinically qualified assistant using the Office of Population Census and Surveys' (OPCS) disability scale with self assessment of disability and other domains of health related quality of life by patients using the SF-36 and the EuroQol questionnaire; and to compare the scores of patients for each domain of the SF-36 with control data matched for age and sex. Design: Cross sectional study. Setting: Clinical department of neurology, Edinburgh. Subjects: 42 consecutive patients with multiple sclerosis attending a neurology outpatient clinic for review or a neurology ward for rehabilitation. Main outcome measures: Scores on the SF-36; EuroQol; Kurtzke's expanded disability status scale; the OPCS disability scale. Results: Patients and clinicians disagreed on which domains of health status were most important (χ 2 =21, df=7, P=0.003). Patients' assessment of their physical disability using the physical functioning domain of the SF-36 was highly correlated with the clinicians' assessment ( r =-0.87, P<0.001) and the non-clinical assessment ( r =-0.90, P<0.001). However, none of the measures of physical disability correlated with overall health related quality of life measured with EuroQol. Quality of life correlated with vitality, general health, and mental health in the SF-36, each of which patients rated as more important than clinicians and for each of which patients scored lower than the controls. Conclusions: Patients with multiple sclerosis, and possibly those with other chronic diseases, are less concerned than their clinicians about physical disability in their illness. Clinical trials in multiple sclerosis should assess the effect of treatment on the other elements of health status that patients consider important, which are also affected by the disease process, are more closely related to overall health related quality of life, and may well be adversely affected by side effects of treatment. Key messages: Patients can accurately assess their own physical disability Physical disability may not always be the main determinant of overall health related quality of life Patients and clinicians differ in their assessments of the relative importance of different elements of health related quality of life The opinions of patients should be taken into account in the selection of outcome measures for clinical trials
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
Cites
EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life
(1990) · Health Policy · doi:10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9 · Cited by 15,736
Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: An expanded disability status scale (EDSS)
Kurtzke, J. F. (1983) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.33.11.1444 · Cited by 15,011
A health-related quality of life measure for multiple sclerosis
Vickrey, B. G., Hays, R. D., Harooni, R., Myers, L. W., & Ellison, G. W. (1995) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/bf02260859 · Cited by 1,132
Cited by
External validity of randomised controlled trials: “To whom do the results of this trial apply?”
Rothwell, P. M. (2005) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(04)17670-8 · Cited by 2,544
Self-citationValderas, J. M., Kotzeva, A., Espallargues, M., Guyatt, G., Ferrans, C. E., Halyard, M. Y., Revicki, D. A., Symonds, T., Parada, A., & Alonso, J. (2008) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-007-9295-0 · Cited by 775
Lobentanz, I. S., Asenbaum, S., Vass, K., Sauter, C., Klosch, G., Kollegger, H., Kristoferitsch, W., & Zeitlhofer, J. (2004) · Acta Neurologica Scandinavica · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0404.2004.00257.x · Cited by 439
Accuracy of data in abstracts of published research articles
Pitkin, R. M. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.281.12.1110 · Cited by 302
Janssens, A. C. J. W., van Doorn, P. A., de Boer, J. B., van der Meché, F. G. A., Passchier, J., & Hintzen, R. Q. (2003) · Acta Neurologica Scandinavica · doi:10.1034/j.1600-0404.2003.00166.x · Cited by 294
Metadata
- Authors
- Rothwell, P. M., McDowell, Z., Wong, C. K., & Dorman, P. J.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1997-05-31
- Volume
- 314
- Issue
- 7094
- Pages
- 1580
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2034417379
- Cited by
- 548
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 9.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Doctors and patients don't agree: cross sectional study of patients' and doctors' perceptions and assessments of disability in multiple sclerosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.314.7094.1580
- The paper
- Rothwell, P. M., McDowell, Z., Wong, C. K., & Dorman, P. J. (1997). Doctors and patients don't agree: cross sectional study of patients' and doctors' perceptions and assessments of disability in multiple sclerosis. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7094.1580
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.