Template:Did you know nominations/Radiologically isolated syndrome


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Gatoclass (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Radiologically isolated syndrome

 * ... that 50% of people diagnosed with radiologically isolated syndrome go on to develop multiple sclerosis. Source: Reich, Daniel S; Lucchinetti, Claudia F.; Calabresi, Peter A (January 2018). "Multiple Sclerosis". The New England Journal of Medicine. 378 (2): 169–180. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1401483 (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
 * ALT1:... that radiologically isolated syndrome is a condition that may develop into multiple sclerosis, even in children. Source: Makhani, Naila; Lebrun, Christine; Siva, Aksel; Brassat, David; Dallière, Clarisse Carra; Seze, Jérôme de; Du, Wei; Dubief, Françoise Durand; Kantarci, Orhun (2017-11-01). "Radiologically isolated syndrome in children: Clinical and radiologic outcomes". Neurology - Neuroimmunology Neuroinflammation. 4 (6): e395. doi:10.1212/NXI.0000000000000395. ISSN 2332-7812.
 * Comment: With help from WhatamIdoing
 * Comment: With help from WhatamIdoing

Created by Calaka (talk). Self-nominated at 10:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC).


 * My assistance was limited to formatting some refs and cheering Calaka on from the sidelines. I can tell you, if you're shying away from reviewing this because you're not a native speaker of medicalese (who is?  ;-) ), that Calaka seems to have fairly represented the reliable sources, and that these actually are reliable sources for this subject.  So you just need to do a normal review, without worrying that someone's going to die over a typo or something.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg New enough, long enough, within policy, ALT1 hook is cited and interesting, QPQ not required, you have four DYK credits by my count so if this one gets run, you'll need QPQ next time. I have struck the first hook as problematic.  It is cited to two sources.  The first source (the one indicated in the nom) is behind a paywall, but even AGFing that that source supports the hook, ref #3 gives the numbers as 128 out of 453 going on to develop MS (28% on my caculator) which contradicts the hook.  So either the sources are not so definite as 50%, but 28-50% range, or else one of them should be removed as unreliable. SpinningSpark 23:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for this, on my part I was wrong not to specify what clinical event means, as it may appear unclear to a lay person. A clinical event is a term used to describe an "attack or relapse or flare up or exacerbation (all these terms and words are interchangeable)" of clinical symptoms typical of MS, and the first clinical event to occur is the first symptom that occurs that looks like an MS clinical event. Note in the article the reference in children (number 18 in the article) says this:
 * Symbol possible vote.svg The article doesn't specifically state that RIS can develop into MS in children, it only refers to a "clinical event", which could mean anything to a lay person. I'm not even sure that "clinical event" refers to MS anyway. Gatoclass (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

"There are currently no formal criteria for the subsequent diagnosis of MS in either children or adults with RIS. Recently proposed modifications to existing diagnostic criteria, however, suggest that a diagnosis of MS can be made in individuals with RIS (who already demonstrate DIS on MRI) who subsequently develop a first clinical event consistent with CNS demyelination.12"

I will thus make the corrections on the article to specify what clinical event is, so please let me know if it is satisfactory and then the DYK may be approved. Otherwise let me know of the next stepCalaka (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Gatoclass, are you satisfied now? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * On that point, yes, but I just noticed that there doesn't seem to be any clear indication in the article that the condition is "rare". The article actually says prevalence is unknown but one study measured 1 in 2000. Is that a rare incidence of disease? And would one study be enough to demonstrate that? I don't know, and I think that needs to be clarified. Gatoclass (talk) 10:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the additional point. I have removed the word 'rare' in the above hook. I hope this satisfied your criteria. It is actually rare but the fact that it is rare makes it harder to find additional sources (because it is rare). 1 in 2000 is rare. Dying in a car accident is 1 in 100 approximately, and most people don't think of that as a common occurrence. Please let me know if you have any other concerns.Calaka (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I would also like to add that due to the nature of this condition, i.e. the fact that it is incidental, it may in fact be more common than what is reported in the few places that it is reported (and to clarify your other point, there are 2 additional sources that talk about the prevalence in the studies referenced under the epidemiology section), however the nature of this condition is that it comes up only when you go to the hospital for other conditions or for an unrelated reason, and they discover these white matter lesions. But again, removing the word rare in the above hook is appropriate and am happy to hear your next suggestion as to ways to improve the hook if need be. Otherwise, please let me know what I need to do to put the hook back in the queue/pending section of DYK. Kind regards, Calaka (talk) 04:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)