ArticleFrontiers in neurology2025
Differential diagnoses of MS in clinical practice: incidence and methods for differential diagnosis.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objectives: The diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS) is based on the McDonald diagnostic criteria and the exclusion of relevant differential diagnoses. This study aimed to determine the relative frequencies of MS differential diagnoses and to identify which diagnostic measures are most effective in distinguishing those from one another. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of all cases treated in the neurology ward of the University Hospital Regensburg during the years 2019 and 2020. The inclusion criteria comprised cases presenting with subacute focal neurological symptoms accompanied by corresponding lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) that could not be primarily attributed to MS, tumor, hemorrhage, or ischemia, as well as cases with abnormal external MRI findings who were referred to our clinic for the evaluation or exclusion of multiple sclerosis. Results: A total of 127 cases were included in the study. Differential diagnoses of MS were predominantly of inflammatory or vascular origins or non-specific white matter lesions. The primary diagnostic tools for distinguishing differential diagnoses of MS from one another were patient history (fever), cerebrospinal fluid analysis, and brain MRI, as well as a duplex ultrasound of the cranial vessels. Discussion: Our study demonstrates that cerebrospinal fluid analysis and brain MRI are essential not only for the diagnosis of MS but also for distinguishing among its various differential diagnoses. In particular, duplex ultrasound may assist in identifying vascular lesions, while the presence of fever may suggest an infectious cause.
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.