The Accuracy of Prevalence Rates of Multiple Sclerosis: A Critical Review
Review of the recent medical literature raises doubts about the reliability of reported prevalence rates of multiple sclerosis (MS). Many published prevalence rates are inflated. Some studies have shown that relying on clinical information and MRI interpretation leads to one third of incorrect MS di...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Neuroepidemiology 2007-01, Vol.29 (3-4), p.150-155 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 155 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3-4 |
container_start_page | 150 |
container_title | Neuroepidemiology |
container_volume | 29 |
creator | Poser, Charles M. Brinar, Vesna V. |
description | Review of the recent medical literature raises doubts about the reliability of reported prevalence rates of multiple sclerosis (MS). Many published prevalence rates are inflated. Some studies have shown that relying on clinical information and MRI interpretation leads to one third of incorrect MS diagnoses. The most important error is failing to distinguish between the clinical and MRI characteristics of MS and of disseminated encephalomyelitis (DEM) in both their acute and relapsing forms. The diagnostic criteria in current usage, including those relating to imaging, do not differentiate between MS and other recurrent inflammatory demyelinating diseases of the central nervous system. Considering a second demyelinating episode following a clinically isolated symptom or acute DEM, as confirming MS, is another major source of error. Another is including cases with onset before they entered the study group or moved to the geographic area. Neuromyelitis optica (NMO) has long been considered an MS variant and in Far Eastern countries it is counted as the ‘oriental’ form of MS, falsely inflating prevalence rates of MS in those areas. Recent immunologic and radiologic evidence shows that at least some NMO cases represent instances of DEM. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1159/000111576 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_20920295</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>20886595</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c428t-70286c4d507b6f3edc3bd6545bdce3d083504eb62bfb1959b3f3ce7b4e329be83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqN0c1LwzAYBvAgipvTg3eR4kHwUH2TNG3ibQw_BhNlznNp0rfa2a0zaSf77-3scOBFTwnhl5cneQg5pnBJqVBXAECbTRTukC4NGPeBgdwlXWCC-oIL6JAD56aNEkqqfdKhEgKmlOyS4eQNvb4xtU3Myisz78niMilwbtAbJxW69dlDXVT5okDv2RRoS5e7a6_vDWxe5SYpvDEuc_w8JHtZUjg82qw98nJ7Mxnc-6PHu-GgP_JNwGTlR8BkaIJUQKTDjGNquE5DEQidGuQpyCZugDpkOtNUCaV5xg1GOkDOlEbJe-S8nbuw5UeNropnuTNYFMkcy9rFEYCiLIA_IQPFgCnxDyhlKL7h2S84LWs7b14bsyZdKCSs8120yDQ_5Sxm8cLms8SuYgrxuq74p67Gnm4G1nqG6VZu-mnASQveE_uKdgva-19GBZX_</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>232965808</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Accuracy of Prevalence Rates of Multiple Sclerosis: A Critical Review</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Karger Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Poser, Charles M. ; Brinar, Vesna V.</creator><creatorcontrib>Poser, Charles M. ; Brinar, Vesna V.</creatorcontrib><description>Review of the recent medical literature raises doubts about the reliability of reported prevalence rates of multiple sclerosis (MS). Many published prevalence rates are inflated. Some studies have shown that relying on clinical information and MRI interpretation leads to one third of incorrect MS diagnoses. The most important error is failing to distinguish between the clinical and MRI characteristics of MS and of disseminated encephalomyelitis (DEM) in both their acute and relapsing forms. The diagnostic criteria in current usage, including those relating to imaging, do not differentiate between MS and other recurrent inflammatory demyelinating diseases of the central nervous system. Considering a second demyelinating episode following a clinically isolated symptom or acute DEM, as confirming MS, is another major source of error. Another is including cases with onset before they entered the study group or moved to the geographic area. Neuromyelitis optica (NMO) has long been considered an MS variant and in Far Eastern countries it is counted as the ‘oriental’ form of MS, falsely inflating prevalence rates of MS in those areas. Recent immunologic and radiologic evidence shows that at least some NMO cases represent instances of DEM.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0251-5350</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1423-0208</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1159/000111576</identifier><identifier>PMID: 18042998</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Basel, Switzerland: S. Karger AG</publisher><subject>Bias ; Cross-Cultural Comparison ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Diagnosis, Differential ; Encephalomyelitis, Acute Disseminated - diagnosis ; Encephalomyelitis, Acute Disseminated - epidemiology ; Humans ; Incidence ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Multiple Sclerosis - diagnosis ; Multiple Sclerosis - epidemiology ; Neuromyelitis Optica - diagnosis ; Neuromyelitis Optica - epidemiology ; Reproducibility of Results ; Review</subject><ispartof>Neuroepidemiology, 2007-01, Vol.29 (3-4), p.150-155</ispartof><rights>2007 S. Karger AG, Basel</rights><rights>(c) 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel.</rights><rights>Copyright (c) 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c428t-70286c4d507b6f3edc3bd6545bdce3d083504eb62bfb1959b3f3ce7b4e329be83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c428t-70286c4d507b6f3edc3bd6545bdce3d083504eb62bfb1959b3f3ce7b4e329be83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,2429,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18042998$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Poser, Charles M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brinar, Vesna V.</creatorcontrib><title>The Accuracy of Prevalence Rates of Multiple Sclerosis: A Critical Review</title><title>Neuroepidemiology</title><addtitle>Neuroepidemiology</addtitle><description>Review of the recent medical literature raises doubts about the reliability of reported prevalence rates of multiple sclerosis (MS). Many published prevalence rates are inflated. Some studies have shown that relying on clinical information and MRI interpretation leads to one third of incorrect MS diagnoses. The most important error is failing to distinguish between the clinical and MRI characteristics of MS and of disseminated encephalomyelitis (DEM) in both their acute and relapsing forms. The diagnostic criteria in current usage, including those relating to imaging, do not differentiate between MS and other recurrent inflammatory demyelinating diseases of the central nervous system. Considering a second demyelinating episode following a clinically isolated symptom or acute DEM, as confirming MS, is another major source of error. Another is including cases with onset before they entered the study group or moved to the geographic area. Neuromyelitis optica (NMO) has long been considered an MS variant and in Far Eastern countries it is counted as the ‘oriental’ form of MS, falsely inflating prevalence rates of MS in those areas. Recent immunologic and radiologic evidence shows that at least some NMO cases represent instances of DEM.</description><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Cross-Cultural Comparison</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>Diagnosis, Differential</subject><subject>Encephalomyelitis, Acute Disseminated - diagnosis</subject><subject>Encephalomyelitis, Acute Disseminated - epidemiology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Incidence</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</subject><subject>Multiple Sclerosis - diagnosis</subject><subject>Multiple Sclerosis - epidemiology</subject><subject>Neuromyelitis Optica - diagnosis</subject><subject>Neuromyelitis Optica - epidemiology</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Review</subject><issn>0251-5350</issn><issn>1423-0208</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqN0c1LwzAYBvAgipvTg3eR4kHwUH2TNG3ibQw_BhNlznNp0rfa2a0zaSf77-3scOBFTwnhl5cneQg5pnBJqVBXAECbTRTukC4NGPeBgdwlXWCC-oIL6JAD56aNEkqqfdKhEgKmlOyS4eQNvb4xtU3Myisz78niMilwbtAbJxW69dlDXVT5okDv2RRoS5e7a6_vDWxe5SYpvDEuc_w8JHtZUjg82qw98nJ7Mxnc-6PHu-GgP_JNwGTlR8BkaIJUQKTDjGNquE5DEQidGuQpyCZugDpkOtNUCaV5xg1GOkDOlEbJe-S8nbuw5UeNropnuTNYFMkcy9rFEYCiLIA_IQPFgCnxDyhlKL7h2S84LWs7b14bsyZdKCSs8120yDQ_5Sxm8cLms8SuYgrxuq74p67Gnm4G1nqG6VZu-mnASQveE_uKdgva-19GBZX_</recordid><startdate>20070101</startdate><enddate>20070101</enddate><creator>Poser, Charles M.</creator><creator>Brinar, Vesna V.</creator><general>S. Karger AG</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20070101</creationdate><title>The Accuracy of Prevalence Rates of Multiple Sclerosis: A Critical Review</title><author>Poser, Charles M. ; Brinar, Vesna V.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c428t-70286c4d507b6f3edc3bd6545bdce3d083504eb62bfb1959b3f3ce7b4e329be83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Cross-Cultural Comparison</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>Diagnosis, Differential</topic><topic>Encephalomyelitis, Acute Disseminated - diagnosis</topic><topic>Encephalomyelitis, Acute Disseminated - epidemiology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Incidence</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</topic><topic>Multiple Sclerosis - diagnosis</topic><topic>Multiple Sclerosis - epidemiology</topic><topic>Neuromyelitis Optica - diagnosis</topic><topic>Neuromyelitis Optica - epidemiology</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Review</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Poser, Charles M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brinar, Vesna V.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Neuroepidemiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Poser, Charles M.</au><au>Brinar, Vesna V.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Accuracy of Prevalence Rates of Multiple Sclerosis: A Critical Review</atitle><jtitle>Neuroepidemiology</jtitle><addtitle>Neuroepidemiology</addtitle><date>2007-01-01</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>3-4</issue><spage>150</spage><epage>155</epage><pages>150-155</pages><issn>0251-5350</issn><eissn>1423-0208</eissn><abstract>Review of the recent medical literature raises doubts about the reliability of reported prevalence rates of multiple sclerosis (MS). Many published prevalence rates are inflated. Some studies have shown that relying on clinical information and MRI interpretation leads to one third of incorrect MS diagnoses. The most important error is failing to distinguish between the clinical and MRI characteristics of MS and of disseminated encephalomyelitis (DEM) in both their acute and relapsing forms. The diagnostic criteria in current usage, including those relating to imaging, do not differentiate between MS and other recurrent inflammatory demyelinating diseases of the central nervous system. Considering a second demyelinating episode following a clinically isolated symptom or acute DEM, as confirming MS, is another major source of error. Another is including cases with onset before they entered the study group or moved to the geographic area. Neuromyelitis optica (NMO) has long been considered an MS variant and in Far Eastern countries it is counted as the ‘oriental’ form of MS, falsely inflating prevalence rates of MS in those areas. Recent immunologic and radiologic evidence shows that at least some NMO cases represent instances of DEM.</abstract><cop>Basel, Switzerland</cop><pub>S. Karger AG</pub><pmid>18042998</pmid><doi>10.1159/000111576</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0251-5350 |
ispartof | Neuroepidemiology, 2007-01, Vol.29 (3-4), p.150-155 |
issn | 0251-5350 1423-0208 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_20920295 |
source | MEDLINE; Karger Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Bias Cross-Cultural Comparison Cross-Sectional Studies Diagnosis, Differential Encephalomyelitis, Acute Disseminated - diagnosis Encephalomyelitis, Acute Disseminated - epidemiology Humans Incidence Magnetic Resonance Imaging Multiple Sclerosis - diagnosis Multiple Sclerosis - epidemiology Neuromyelitis Optica - diagnosis Neuromyelitis Optica - epidemiology Reproducibility of Results Review |
title | The Accuracy of Prevalence Rates of Multiple Sclerosis: A Critical Review |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T23%3A10%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Accuracy%20of%20Prevalence%20Rates%20of%20Multiple%20Sclerosis:%20A%20Critical%20Review&rft.jtitle=Neuroepidemiology&rft.au=Poser,%20Charles%20M.&rft.date=2007-01-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=3-4&rft.spage=150&rft.epage=155&rft.pages=150-155&rft.issn=0251-5350&rft.eissn=1423-0208&rft_id=info:doi/10.1159/000111576&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E20886595%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=232965808&rft_id=info:pmid/18042998&rfr_iscdi=true |