Cited by 30Multiple Sclerosis Research StudiesClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsHealthcare Systems and Technology

Multiple sclerosis, from referral to confirmed diagnosis: an audit of clinical practice

Kelly, SB, Chaila, E, Kinsella, K, Duggan, M, McGuigan, C, Tubridy, N, Hutchinson, M·2011·Multiple Sclerosis Journal

Abstract

Background: The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines recommend a timeline of 6 weeks from referral to neurology consultation and then 6 weeks to a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS). Objectives: We audited the clinical management of all new outpatient referrals diagnosed with MS between January 2007 and May 2010. Methods: We analysed the timelines from referral to first clinic visit, to MRI studies and lumbar puncture (LP) (if performed) and the overall interval from first visit to the time the diagnosis was given to the patient. Results: Of the 119 diagnoses of MS/Clinically Isolated Syndrome (CIS), 93 (78%) were seen within 6 weeks of referral. MRI was performed before first visit in 61% and within 6 weeks in a further 27%. A lumbar puncture (LP) was performed in 83% of all patients and was done within 6 weeks in 78%. In total, 63 (53%) patients received their final diagnosis within 6 weeks of their first clinic visit, with 57 (48%) patients having their diagnosis delayed. The main rate-limiting steps were the availability of imaging and LP, and administrative issues. Conclusions: We conclude that, even with careful scheduling, it is difficult for a specialist service to obtain MRI scans and LP results so as to fulfil NICE guidelines within the optimal six-week period. An improved service would require MRI scans to be arranged before the first clinic visit in all patients with suspected MS.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1352458511403643

Cites

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?

  • The reasons for diagnostic delay in MS are multifactorial and often involve systemic barriers to healthcare access.

    “The reasons for this are multifactorial, and often involve systemic barriers to healthcare access. Although many studies have reported such diagnostic delay in MS care [8–12], only a few have documented specific misdiagnoses that were responsible for such delays (Table 1).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kelly, S., Chaila, E., Kinsella, K., Duggan, M., McGuigan, C., Tubridy, N., & Hutchinson, M.
Affiliations
St. Vincent's University Hospital (IE)
Corresponding author
Kelly, SB
Venue
Multiple Sclerosis Journal
Published
2011-04-05
Volume
17
Issue
8
Pages
1017-1021
ISSN
  • 1352-4585 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0970
OpenAlex
W2155979723
Cited by
30
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Multiple Sclerosis Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lenus, The Irish Health Repository (Dr Steevens Hospital Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Healthcare Systems and Technology
Keywords
multiple sclerosis, clinically isolated syndrome, delayed diagnosis, NICE guidelines, lumbar puncture, diagnostic pathway, outpatient clinic scheduling
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Medical Audit, Middle Aged, Multiple Sclerosis, Referral and Consultation, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Young Adult

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