Initial evaluations for multiple sclerosis in a university multiple sclerosis center - Outcomes and role of magnetic resonance imaging in referral

University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado, United States
JAMA Neurology (Impact Factor: 7.42). 04/2005; 62(4):585-90. DOI: 10.1001/archneur.62.4.585
Source: PubMed


To evaluate diagnostic outcomes, especially as they relate to reason for referral, of patients referred to a university-based multiple sclerosis (MS) center for possible MS.
Retrospective medical record review of all new patient visits to University of Colorado Multiple Sclerosis Center, Denver, from January 1, 2001, to June 30, 2003.
Of 281 patients referred to evaluate the possibility of MS, after initial review 33% were diagnosed with MS or possible MS by the McDonald criteria. The rest had other neurological conditions (31.5%), probable psychiatric diagnoses (22.5%), or no clear diagnosis was made (12.5%). Of patients with typical, possible, or atypical demyelinating syndromes, 71%, 27%, and 0%, respectively (P<.001), had MS or possible MS. Of the 63% of patients referred on the basis of clinical symptoms and signs, 46% were diagnosed with MS or possible MS vs 11% of patients referred primarily on the basis of abnormal brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) results (P<.001). Of patients referred because of abnormal MRI results who did not have MS or possible MS, 70% had a clear alternative etiology for the abnormal MRI results, including migraine, age older than 50 years, other neurological disease, or hypertension.
A significant percentage of patients referred to a university-based MS center have little or no likelihood of having MS, and many have undiagnosed, untreated psychiatric illness or common conditions with abnormal brain MRI results. With respect to the diagnosis of MS, greater training of primary care professionals, neurologists, and radiologists is necessary.

39 Reads
    • "If the patient presents with a spinal cord syndrome suggestive of MS, then MRI of both brain and spinal cord should be done. The location, size, and orientation of the MRI lesions may often suggest MS but, in the absence of a suggestive clinical presentation, these MRI lesions are by themselves not very specific for MS.[11] If necessary visual evoked potentials (VEP) may also reveal a clinically unaffected site helping fulfill dissemination in space criteria. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS) requires objective findings referable to the central nervous system. A wide differential diagnosis often has to be considered. Magnetic resonance imaging and electrophysiologic and cerebrospinal fluid studies can all contribute to an early definitive diagnosis. The McDonald diagnostic criteria for MS (2005) are the currently recognized MS diagnostic criteria. The clinical subtypes of MS and their diagnosis are discussed in this article. Being informed of the diagnosis may be a stressful experience for the patient and this is also dealt with.
    Annals of Indian Academy of Neurology 10/2009; 12(4):226-30. DOI:10.4103/0972-2327.58276 · 0.60 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS) relies on the occurrence of characteristic symptoms, on the patient's history and on the correct interpretation of nowadays very sensitive but not very specific auxillary examinations. This paper reviews the diagnostic criteria and typical signs and symptoms of the disease. The significance of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and evoked potentials is discussed, with emphasis on their predictive value concerning the development of MS after a first episode with symptoms suggestive of MS. A wide range of other diseases mimicking MS, like infectious, autoimmune, granulomatous, metabolic and hereditary diseases is reviewed. A checklist for important points in patient history and further investigations is proposed.
    Praxis 02/1997; 86(3):46-54.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patients with medically unexplained symptoms continue to intrigue, fascinate and frustrate clinicians. They are common in general medicine and often present with apparent neurological disorder. This review aims to provide insight into the recent literature that has sought to clarify epidemiology, diagnostic issues, aetiologic understanding and treatment of patients with psychogenic disorders who usually first present to neurologists. Somatoform disorders are common in neurological practice. A number of papers have addressed issues of epidemiology and identified that medically unexplained symptoms in neurological populations are higher than originally thought. A number of recent review papers have served to summarize areas of considerable information (e.g. treatments) and areas of rapid growth in knowledge (e.g. neuroimaging). Studies investigating the role of psychological factors are well represented and clarify our psychopathological understanding of somatoform disorders in patients presenting to neurologists. Treatment studies are few and continue to be limited by population sizes and study designs. Somatoform disorders are common in neurological populations. Comorbidity related to somatoform disorders with known organic neurological conditions requires further study. On account of the limitations of treatment studies, evidence-based clinical management of these patients is awaited.
    Current Opinion in Psychiatry 08/2006; 19(4):413-20. DOI:10.1097/01.yco.0000228764.25732.21 · 3.94 Impact Factor
Show more