Long-term follow-up of suspected though unconfirmed MS
Abstract
Objective There is no gold standard diagnostic test for MS, and evaluation of present diagnostic criteria has almost exclusively been done in populations of which the vast majority is prone to develop MS. Patients referred for a potential MS diagnosis in whom ultimately another or no diagnosis is made are seldomly reported in a systematic way. We report, after 7 years, on the diagnoses made in a cohort of patients with suspected though unconfirmed MS. Methods We retrieved information on the current diagnosis of all patients who had visited our center between 1998 and 2001 for a second opinion concerning a possible MS diagnosis and in whom no diagnosis had been made at that time. Results Seventy-five patients (86%) could be retrieved and cooperated. In seven patients, a diagnosis of MS, in eight patients another neurological diagnosis had been made. In the remaining 60 patients, still no neurological diagnosis had been made. Conclusions In potential MS patients seen in a tertiary referral center, the likelihood that a patient who is not diagnosed with MS will in the future develop a neurological disease is small. This study suggests that, in addition to playing a role in diagnosing MS, MRI can be helpful to exclude MS in clinically doubtful cases.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
This study is particularly limited because in a significant proportion of patients, including 80% at follow-up 7 years later, no diagnosis could be identified.
“This study is particularly limited because in a significant proportion of patients, including 80% at follow-up 7 years later, no diagnosis could be identified [23].”
From Functional neurological disorder and multiple sclerosis: a systematic review of misdiagnosis and clinical overlap (2022) · cites this paper as [23]
Cites
A longitudinal study of abnormalities on MRI and disability from multiple sclerosis
Brex, P. A., Ciccarelli, O., O'Riordan, J. I., Sailer, M., Thompson, A. J., & Miller, D. H. (2002) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa011341 · Cited by 861 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Walzl, D., Solomon, A. J., & Stone, J. (2022) · Journal of Neurology · doi:10.1007/s00415-021-10436-6 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
- Authors
- Nielsen, J., Uitdehaag, B., & Polman, C.
- Affiliations
- Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
- Department of Neurology, VU University Medical Center, MS Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Neurology, VU University Medical Center, MS Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Corresponding author
- Nielsen, JM
- Venue
- Multiple Sclerosis Journal
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2008-06-23
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 985-987
- ISSN
- 1352-4585 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-0970
- OpenAlex
- W2026886494
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Multiple Sclerosis Journal (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- 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, long-term follow-up, second opinion, diagnostic exclusion, magnetic resonance imaging, neurological diagnosis, diagnostic criteria, tertiary referral center
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Diagnostic Errors, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Medical Records, Multiple Sclerosis, Referral and Consultation, Cohort Studies
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