Misdiagnosis in multiple sclerosis in a Brazilian reference center: Clinical, radiological, laboratory profile and failures in the diagnostic process—Cohort study

Background: Multiple sclerosis misdiagnosis remains a problem despite the well-validated McDonald 2017. For proper evaluation of errors in the diagnostic process that lead to misdiagnosis, it is adequate to incorporate patients who are already under regular follow-up at reference centers of demyelin...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Multiple sclerosis 2023-12, Vol.29 (14), p.1755-1764
Hauptverfasser: Tieppo, Eduardo Macedo de Souza, Silva, Guilherme Diogo, Silva, Tomás Fraga Ferreira da, Araujo, Roger Santana de, Oliveira, Mateus Boaventura de, Spricigo, Mariana Gondim Peixoto, Pimentel, Gabriela Almeida, Campana, Igor Gusmão, Castrillo, Bruno Batitucci, Mendes, Natalia Trombini, Teixeira, Larissa Silva, Nunes, Douglas Mendes, Rimkus, Carolina de Medeiros, Adoni, Tarso, Apóstolos Pereira, Samira Luisa, Callegaro, Dagoberto
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background: Multiple sclerosis misdiagnosis remains a problem despite the well-validated McDonald 2017. For proper evaluation of errors in the diagnostic process that lead to misdiagnosis, it is adequate to incorporate patients who are already under regular follow-up at reference centers of demyelinating diseases. Objectives: To evaluate multiple sclerosis misdiagnosis in patients who are on follow-up at a reference center of demyelinating diseases in Brazil. Methods: We designed an observational study including patients in regular follow-up, who were diagnosed with multiple sclerosis at our specialized outpatient clinic in the Hospital of Clinics in the University of Sao Paulo, from 1996 to 2021, and were reassessed for misdiagnosis in 2022. We evaluated demographic information, clinical profile, and complementary exams and classified participants as “established multiple sclerosis,” “non-multiple sclerosis, diagnosed,” and “non-multiple sclerosis, undiagnosed.” Failures in the diagnostic process were assessed by the modified Diagnostic Error Evaluation and Research tool. Results: A total of 201 patients were included. After analysis, 191/201 (95.02%) participants were confirmed as “established multiple sclerosis,” 5/201 (2.49%) were defined as “non-multiple sclerosis, diagnosed,” and 5/201 (2.49%) were defined as “non-multiple sclerosis, undiagnosed.” Conclusions: Multiple sclerosis misdiagnosis persists in reference centers, emphasizing the need for careful interpretation of clinical findings to prevent errors.
ISSN:1352-4585
1477-0970
DOI:10.1177/13524585231199323