4.7 Article

Undiagnosing multiple sclerosis The challenge of misdiagnosis in MS

Journal

NEUROLOGY
Volume 78, Issue 24, Pages 1986-1991

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e318259e1b2

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIH
  2. Department of Veterans Affairs
  3. National Multiple Sclerosis Society
  4. Teva Neuroscience
  5. Biogen Idec
  6. EMD Serono, Inc.
  7. Oregon Clinical and Translational Research Institute
  8. National Center for Research Resources, a component of the NIH [UL1 RR024140]
  9. NIH Roadmap for Medical Research
  10. Partners Multiple Sclerosis Fellowship Award
  11. Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To describe the clinical characteristics of encounters with patients misdiagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS). Methods: A cross-sectional Internet-based physician survey of MS specialists was performed. Results: The response rate for the survey was 50.4%. Of those who responded, the majority (95%) reported having evaluated 1 or more patients who had been diagnosed with MS, but who they strongly felt did not have MS, within the last year. The majority of respondents (>90%) also reported the use of disease-modifying therapy in a proportion of these patients. Most respondents (94%) found clinical encounters with these patients equally or more challenging than giving a new diagnosis of MS. Fourteen percent of respondents reported that they did not always inform such patients of their opinion that they did not have MS. Conclusions: The misdiagnosis of MS is common and has significant consequences for patient care and health care system costs. Caring for a patient with a misdiagnosis of MS is challenging, and at times honest disclosure of a misdiagnosis represents an important ethical concern for neurologists. More data are needed on this patient population to improve diagnostic acumen and the care of these patients. Neurology (R) 2012; 78: 1986-1991

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available