Clinical Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis: Title and subTitle BreakThe Impact of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Ancillary Testing

Randolph B. Schiffer, MD; David H. Mattson, MD, PhD; Andrew D. Goodman, MD; Alvin I. Mushlin, MD, MSc; Cathleen Mooney, MS, RN; Virginia M. Grow, MA; Daniel W. Giang, MD

Arch Neurol. 1994;51(1):61-66. doi:10.1001/archneur.1994.00540130087016

Text Size: A A A

Published online

Article

References

Comments

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT | REFERENCES

Objective: Magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, cerebrospinal fluid analysis, and evoked potential testing are used to assist in the diagnosis of patients suspected to have multiple sclerosis (MS). The impact of these tests on a clinician's diagnosis of patients suspected to have MS has not been studied systematically.

Design: Clinicians made a diagnosis of each patient following clinical evaluation, again after reviewing the results of magnetic resonance imaging, and finally after reviewing information from other laboratory testing. These diagnoses were compared with the criterion standard of a masked "gold standard" panel reviewing all information after a mean follow-up of 0.9 year.

Setting: The General Neurology Clinic and Multiple Sclerosis Clinic of the University of Rochester (NY).

Patients: A consecutive sample of 62 patients diagnosed as having either possible or probable MS following clinical evaluation.

Main Outcome Measure: Changes in diagnostic certainty of clinicians following incremental presentation of new laboratory data and the accuracy of such diagnoses.

Results: Clinicians used magnetic resonance imaging findings to diagnose definite MS or to eliminate MS from diagnostic consideration in 44% of cases. In these cases, further laboratory testing did not alter clinicians' decisions. In the remaining 56% of cases, in which magnetic resonance imaging did not lead to a diagnosis of definite MS or eliminate MS from diagnostic consideration, further laboratory testing led to such diagnoses in an additional 13% of cases. Gold standard diagnoses were in agreement with the clinician's assessments.

Conclusions: Magnetic resonance imaging aids in the evaluation of patients suspected to have MS; other subsequent studies (computed tomography, cerebrospinal fluid analysis, and evoked potential testing) have less impact. After all studies are performed, about half of such patients still have a tentative diagnosis.

REFERENCES

ABSTRACT | REFERENCES

Schumacher GA, Beebe G, Kibler RF, et al. Problems of experimental trials of therapy in multiple sclerosis: report by the panel on the evaluation of experimental trials of therapy in multiple sclerosis . Ann N Y Acad Sci . 1965;:122: 552-568.

Poser CM, Paty DW, Scheinberg L, et al. New diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines for research protocols . Ann Neurol . 1983;;13:227-231.

Paty DW, Asbury AK, Herndon RM, et al. Use of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: policy statement . Neurology . 1989;:39: 151-153.

David P, Ristori GP, Elia M, et al. Multiple sclerosis: magnetic resonance imaging, evoked potentials and cerebrospinal fluid analysis . Acta Neurol . 1990;; 12:200-206.

Gilmore RL, Kasarskis EJ, Carr WA, Norvell E. Comparative impact of para-clinical studies in establishing the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis . Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol . 1989;;73:433-442.

Guerit JM, Monje Argiles A. The sensitivity of multimodal evoked potentials in multiple sclerosis: a comparison with magnetic resonance imaging and cerebrospinal fluid analysis . Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol . 1988;;70:230-238.

Milanese C, Savoiardo M, La Mantia L, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in multiple sclerosis: diagnostic value and clinical correlations . Ital J Neurol Sci . 1988;;9:127-134.

Noakes JB, Herkes GK, Frith JA, McCleod JG, Jones MP. Magnetic resonance imaging in clinically-definite multiple sclerosis . Med J Aust . 1990;;152:136-140.

Sola P, Scarpa M, Faglioni P, Sorgato P, Merelli E. Diagnostic investigations in MS: which is the most sensitive? Acta Neurol Scand . 1989;;80:394-399.

Yetkin FZ, Haugnton VM, Papke RA, Fisher ME, Rao SM. Multiple sclerosis: specificity of MR for diagnosis . Radiology . 1991;;178:447-451.

Gerbarski SS, Gabrielsen TO, Gilman S, Knake JE, Latack JT, Aisen AM. The initial diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: clinical impact of magnetic resonance imaging . Ann Neurol . 1985;;17:469-474.

Farlow MR, Markand ON, Edwards MK, Stevens JC, Kolar OJ. Multiple sclerosis: magnetic resonance imaging, evoked responses, and spinal fluid electrophoresis . Neurology . 1986;;36:828-831.

Giesser BS, Kurtzberg D, Vaughan HG Jr, et al. Trimodal evoked potentials compared with magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis . Arch Neurol . 1987;;44:281-284.

Paty DW, Oger JJ, Kastrukoff LF, et al. MRI in the diagnosis of MS: a prospective study with comparison of clinical evaluation, evoked potentials, oligoclonal banding, and CT . Neurology . 1988;;38:180-185.

Lee KH, Hashimoto SA, Hooge JP, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the head in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: a prospective 2-year follow-up with comparison of clinical evaluation, evoked potentials, oligoclonal banding, and CT . Neurology . 1991;;41:657-660.

O'Conner P, Tansey C, Kucharczyk W, Detsky AS, Rochester-Toronto MRI Study Group. A randomized trial of test result sequencing in patients with suspected multiple sclerosis . Arch Neurol . 1994;;51:53-59.

First Page Preview

Figures

Tables

Interactive Graphics

Video

Country-Specific Mortality and Growth Failure in Infancy and Yound Children and Association With Material Stature

Use interactive graphics and maps to view and sort country-specific infant and early dhildhood mortality and growth failure data and their association with maternal