Cited by 5Multiple Sclerosis Research StudiesClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsPeripheral Neuropathies and Disorders

Long-term follow-up of suspected though unconfirmed MS

Nielsen, JM, Uitdehaag, BMJ, Polman, CH·2008·Multiple Sclerosis Journal

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

Crossref · 10.1177/1352458508090922

Cites

1 of 1 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
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
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