4.3 Review

Differential diagnosis of suspected multiple sclerosis: a consensus approach

期刊

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
卷 14, 期 9, 页码 1157-1174

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1352458508096878

关键词

diagnosis; differential diagnosis; multiple sclerosis

资金

  1. National Multiple Sclerosis Society (US)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and objectives Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis ( MS) requires exclusion of diseases that could better explain the clinical and paraclinical findings. A systematic process for exclusion of alternative diagnoses has not been defined. An International Panel of MS experts developed consensus perspectives on MS differential diagnosis. Methods Using available literature and consensus, we developed guidelines for MS differential diagnosis, focusing on exclusion of potential MS mimics, diagnosis of common initial isolated clinical syndromes, and differentiating between MS and non-MS idiopathic inflammatory demyelinating diseases. Results We present recommendations for 1) clinical and paraclinical red flags suggesting alternative diagnoses to MS; 2) more precise definition of clinically isolated syndromes (CIS), often the first presentations of MS or its alternatives; 3) algorithms for diagnosis of three common CISs related to MS in the optic nerves, brainstem, and spinal cord; and 4) a classification scheme and diagnosis criteria for idiopathic inflammatory demyelinating disorders of the central nervous system. Conclusions Differential diagnosis leading to MS or alternatives is complex and a strong evidence base is lacking. Consensus-determined guidelines provide a practical path for diagnosis and will be useful for the non-MS specialist neurologist. Recommendations are made for future research to validate and support these guidelines. Guidance on the differential diagnosis process when MS is under consideration will enhance diagnostic accuracy and precision. Multiple Sclerosis 2008; 14: 1157 1174. http://msj.sagepub. com

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据