ArticleNeurology2026
Diagnostic Revision From Primary Lateral Sclerosis to Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: A Cohort Study.
Article in Neurology, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesPrimary lateral sclerosis (PLS) is defined as a pure upper motor neuron syndrome and is a diagnosis of exclusion, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) being the most likely alternative diagnostic consideration. A minimum disease duration of 2 years is required for the diagnosis of PLS, after which patients are classified as probable PLS (P-PLS) and subsequently as definite PLS (D-PLS) after 4 years. Our aim is to apply the current diagnostic criteria to a population-based cohort and investigate which clinical characteristics are associated with a diagnostic revision to ALS.
methodsThis cohort study included patients meeting the current diagnostic criteria for PLS retrospectively from the Dutch Motor Neuron Disease Registry. Diagnostic revision to ALS was based on clinical assessment, EMG findings according to the revised El Escorial Criteria, or if patients had died from disease progression within 4 years of disease onset. Clinical characteristics were compared for patients who underwent diagnostic revision with ALS vs true PLS. Subdistribution hazard ratios (SHRs) for characteristics associated with diagnostic revision were determined using Fine-Gray regression.
resultsWe included 478 patients (median age of onset 59.3 years, interquartile range 50.8-67.0, 47.9% female), of whom 311 (65.1%) met criteria for P-PLS and 167 (34.9%) for D-PLS at diagnosis. Eighty-eight patients (18%) underwent diagnostic revision to ALS, 76 cases (86%) before 4 years of disease duration. Patients whose diagnosis was revised to ALS had higher median age at onset (63.4 vs 58.0 years, DISCUSSION: In our cohort, most diagnostic revisions from PLS to ALS were in patients with a disease duration of less than 4 years. Besides disease duration, a faster progression rate was associated with diagnostic revision from PLS to ALS. Adding progression rate to the current diagnostic criteria could increase accuracy and help identify patients at higher risk of developing ALS.
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.