Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32675142›Full record

ArticleClinical medicine (London, England)2020

Clinical presentation and diagnosis of multiple sclerosis.

Helen Ford

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 109 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
109citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

109 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

49 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Helen FordLeeds Centre for Neurosciences, Leeds, UK helen.ford17@nhs.net.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS) is through clinical assessment and supported by investigations. There is no single accurate and reliable diagnostic test. MS is a disease of young adults with a female predominance. There are characteristic clinical presentations based on the areas of the central nervous system involved, for example optic nerve, brainstem and spinal cord. The main pattern of MS at onset is relapsing-remitting with clinical attacks of neurological dysfunction lasting at least 24 hours. The differential diagnosis includes other inflammatory central nervous system disorders. Magnetic resonance imaging of the brain and lumbar puncture are the key investigations. New diagnostic criteria have been developed to allow an earlier diagnosis and thus access to effective disease modifying treatments.

Indexed as

Multiple SclerosisBrainDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleSpinal CordYoung AdultMSMultiple sclerosisneurology

Identifiers

PMID32675142
PMCPMC7385797

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.