ArticleInternal medicine (Tokyo, Japan)2024
The Movement Disorder Society Criteria: Its Clinical Usefulness in Multiple System Atrophy.
Article in Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective In 2022, Wenning et al. proposed the Movement Disorder Society Criteria (MDS criteria) for the Diagnosis of Multiple System Atrophy (MSA). These criteria were expected to provide useful alternatives to the second consensus statement. We examined trends in these diagnostic criteria. Methods We used patient data registered with the Hokkaido Rare Disease Consortium for Multiple System Atrophy, which has been recruiting patients with MSA through medical facilities in Hokkaido since November 2014. Patients were evaluated according to the MDS criteria based on neurological examinations and imaging findings at three separate times: the first evaluation, the time of enrollment (diagnosis), and the most recent evaluation (final evaluation). Results The MDS criteria were examined in 68 of 244 patients enrolled between November 2014 and July 2022. At the initial evaluation, the classifications were as follows: clinically established (n=27; 39.7%); clinically probable (n=13; 19.1%); possible prodromal (n=12; 17.6%); and negative [did not meet criteria (n=16; 23.5%)]. At the time of diagnosis, the classifications were as follows: clinically established (n=45; 66.2%); clinically probable (n=12; 17.6%); possible prodromal (n=4; 5.9%); and negative (n=7; 10.3%). At the final evaluation, the classifications were as follows: clinically established (n=52; 76.5%); clinically probable (n=9; 13.2%); possible prodromal (n=2; 2.9%); and negative (n=5; 7.4%). Conclusion We were able to clarify the changes in the criteria values and transition of patients due to the clarification of imaging and supportive findings in the MDS criteria.
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.