Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Multiple system atrophy (MSA) is a rare, adult-onset, progressive neurodegenerative disorder with major diagnostic challenges. Aiming for a better diagnostic accuracy particularly at early disease stages, novel Movement Disorder Society criteria for the diagnosis of MSA (MDS MSA criteria) have been recently developed. They introduce a neuropathologically established MSA category and three levels of clinical diagnostic certainty including clinically established MSA, clinically probable MSA, and the research category of possible prodromal MSA. The diagnosis of clinically established and clinically probable MSA is based on the presence of cardiovascular or urological autonomic failure, parkinsonism (poorly L-Dopa-responsive for the diagnosis of clinically established MSA), and cerebellar syndrome. These core clinical features need to be associated with supportive motor and non-motor features (MSA red flags) and absence of any exclusion criteria. Characteristic brain MRI markers are required for a diagnosis of clinically established MSA. A research category of possible prodromal MSA is devised to capture patients manifesting with autonomic failure or REM sleep behavior disorder and only mild motor signs at the earliest disease stage. There is a number of promising laboratory markers for MSA that may help increase the overall clinical diagnostic accuracy. In this review, we will discuss the core and supportive clinical features for a diagnosis of MSA in light of the new MDS MSA criteria, which laboratory tools may assist in the clinical diagnosis and which major differential diagnostic challenges should be borne in mind.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.