ReviewBrain and behavior2019
Epidemiology of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder in Denmark (1998-2008, 2007-2014).
Review in Brain and behavior, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Sex ratio and age of onset in AQP4 antibody-associated NMOSD: a review and meta-analysis.Journal of neurology · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Intravitreal delivery of NMO-IgG causes primary retinal damage in the absence of optic nerve injury.Journal of neuroinflammation · 2025Article
- The epidemiology and clinical presentation of seropositive neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder in a US population.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2025Observational
- Comparative study of AQP4 antibody-related diseases and MOG antibody-related diseases among the population in Hunan, China.Acta neurologica Belgica · 2021Article
- Anti-aquaporin 4 IgG Is Not Associated With Any Clinical Disease Characteristics in Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorder.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Article
- Epidemiology of Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorder and Its Prevalence and Incidence Worldwide.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Review
- Epidemiology of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder in Denmark (1998-2008, 2007-2014).Brain and behavior · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Epidemiological studies of the uncommon disorder neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) may be difficult to interpret because of the evolving nature of diagnostic criteria, differences in the definition and accuracy of NMOSD diagnosis, the completeness of case ascertainment, and variability in assays for the disease-specific biomarker aquaporin-4 (AQP4)-IgG. A sub-group of patients with the clinical syndrome NMOSD lack detectable AQP4-IgG and in these cases an accurate diagnosis requires precise diagnostic algorithms and longitudinal follow-up. Consecutive sets of criteria for NMO/NMOSD have been introduced during the two last decades. Such criteria need validation in different populations. Detection of other autoantibodies, such as IgG specific for myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein or for glial fibrillary acidic protein in a sub-group of AQP4-IgG-negative NMOSD patients, has improved over the past decade and may lead to overlap of the clinical syndromes/phenotypes. This review begins by summarizing current knowledge on the widening clinical spectrum of NMOSD. Subsequently, we describe two epidemiological studies from Denmark carried out in two different decades (1998-2008 and 2007-2014) and comment on the differences in study design, patient ascertainment, and interpretation of results. These factors may explain some of the observed differences, reflecting the complexity and providing a clear example of this development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.