↓ Skip to main content

MOG encephalomyelitis: international recommendations on diagnosis and antibody testing

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neuroinflammation, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
22 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
584 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
273 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
MOG encephalomyelitis: international recommendations on diagnosis and antibody testing
Published in
Journal of Neuroinflammation, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12974-018-1144-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. Jarius, F. Paul, O. Aktas, N. Asgari, R. C. Dale, J. de Seze, D. Franciotta, K. Fujihara, A. Jacob, H. J. Kim, I. Kleiter, T. Kümpfel, M. Levy, J. Palace, K. Ruprecht, A. Saiz, C. Trebst, B. G. Weinshenker, B. Wildemann

Abstract

Over the past few years, new-generation cell-based assays have demonstrated a robust association of autoantibodies to full-length human myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG-IgG) with (mostly recurrent) optic neuritis, myelitis and brainstem encephalitis, as well as with acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM)-like presentations. Most experts now consider MOG-IgG-associated encephalomyelitis (MOG-EM) a disease entity in its own right, immunopathogenetically distinct from both classic multiple sclerosis (MS) and aquaporin-4 (AQP4)-IgG-positive neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD). Owing to a substantial overlap in clinicoradiological presentation, MOG-EM was often unwittingly misdiagnosed as MS in the past. Accordingly, increasing numbers of patients with suspected or established MS are currently being tested for MOG-IgG. However, screening of large unselected cohorts for rare biomarkers can significantly reduce the positive predictive value of a test. To lessen the hazard of overdiagnosing MOG-EM, which may lead to inappropriate treatment, more selective criteria for MOG-IgG testing are urgently needed. In this paper, we propose indications for MOG-IgG testing based on expert consensus. In addition, we give a list of conditions atypical for MOG-EM ("red flags") that should prompt physicians to challenge a positive MOG-IgG test result. Finally, we provide recommendations regarding assay methodology, specimen sampling and data interpretation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 273 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 273 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 35 13%
Other 34 12%
Student > Master 21 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 7%
Student > Bachelor 18 7%
Other 52 19%
Unknown 95 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 91 33%
Neuroscience 35 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 2%
Other 19 7%
Unknown 108 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 December 2023.
All research outputs
#1,213,916
of 25,037,495 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neuroinflammation
#100
of 2,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,375
of 332,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neuroinflammation
#2
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,037,495 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,898 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,313 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.