The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Disease Steps in multiple sclerosis: A simple approach to evaluate disease progression
Abstract
Current clinical scales in multiple sclerosis (MS) are often complicated to administer, suffer from interrater variability and lack of uniform representation across grades, and are insensitive to progression at certain stages. Furthermore, they are not easily applied by neurologists and do not clearly differentiate among functional stages of MS. For these reasons, we developed Disease Steps to assess disability in MS. A total of 1,323 patients were classified using both Disease Steps and the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) for a total of 2,755 assessments. The Disease Steps scale consists of 0 = Normal; 1 = Mild disability, mild symptoms or signs; 2 = Moderate disability, visible abnormality of gait; 3 = Early cane, intermittent use of cane; 4 = Late cane, cane-dependent; 5 = Bilateral support; 6 = Confined to wheelchair; and U = Unclassifiable. Results demonstrate that raters could simply and quickly categorize patients using Disease Steps. Patients were uniformly distributed with Disease Steps, whereas a bimodal distribution occurred with the EDSS. On the EDSS, 40.3% of patients scored between 1.0 and 3.5 and 36.0% scored from 6.0 to 6.5, with only 6.9% of patients scoring between 4.0 and 5.5. For 60 patients seen by two neurologists, concordance between raters was excellent for Disease Steps (kappa = 0.8) but only moderate for the EDSS (kappa = 0.54). As a simple and reproducible measure of different functional steps of MS, Disease Steps can be used as a guide in therapeutic decision-making, following response to therapy, and in assessing disease progression.
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
Cited by
Learmonth, Y. C., Motl, R. W., Sandroff, B. M., Pula, J. H., & Cadavid, D. (2013) · BMC Neurology · doi:10.1186/1471-2377-13-37 · Cited by 773
Hohol, M. J., Orav, E. J., & Weiner, H. L. (1999) · Multiple Sclerosis Journal · doi:10.1177/135245859900500508 · Cited by 369
Self-citationCosts and quality of life of patients with multiple sclerosis in Europe
Kobelt, G. (2006) · Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · doi:10.1136/jnnp.2006.090365 · Cited by 363
Validity of performance scales for disability assessment in multiple sclerosis
Marrie, R. A., & Goldman, M. (2007) · Multiple Sclerosis Journal · doi:10.1177/1352458507078388 · Cited by 285
The Sonya Slifka Longitudinal Multiple Sclerosis Study: methods and sample characteristics
Minden, S. L., Frankel, D., Hadden, L., Perloff, J., Srinath, K. P., & Hoaglin, D. C. (2006) · Multiple Sclerosis Journal · doi:10.1191/135248506ms1262oa · Cited by 272
Metadata
- Authors
- Hohol, M. J., Orav, E. J., & Weiner, H. L.
- Venue
- Neurology
- Published
- 1995-02
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 251-255
- ISSN
- 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-632X
- OpenAlex
- W1996308597
- Cited by
- 551
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Disease Steps in multiple sclerosis: A simple approach to evaluate disease progression. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1212/wnl.45.2.251
- The paper
- Hohol, M. J., Orav, E. J., & Weiner, H. L. (1995). Disease Steps in multiple sclerosis: A simple approach to evaluate disease progression. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.45.2.251
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.