TFau wrote:Thanks to Wichita for noting this:
From Canada Press
"The researchers also found fewer cases of CCSVI in patients who had experienced a single MS attack, called clinically isolated syndrome, compared to those with more advanced symptoms of the disease -38 per cent versus about 80 per cent.
Zivadinov, head of the Buffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center at Buffalo General Hospital, said this suggests CCSVI could be linked to progression of MS. But he conceded his data do not offer proof of progression because the study looked at individual patients at only one point in time. A subsequent study is planned that would follow patients over time to see if venous insufficiency advances as their disease worsens."
Since Zamboni did not study CIS patients, does this mean that the number we should be comparing to Zamboni's 95% is 80%? I'd be much happier with that!
TFau wrote:I was hoping that you would weigh-in cheer.
Some neurologists in the press today seem to view the Buffalo numbers as showing that the jury is still out as to whether there is an association between CCSVI and MS. I think that understanding that the finding is 80% in MS patients once CIS patients are excluded leads to a different discussion.
After reading your post (above), I reread the original Buffalo study release, they say that "...The first 500 patients, both adults and children, were grouped based on their diagnosis: MS, clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) and "other neurologic diseases" (OND), in addition to healthy
controls..." Nowhere do they state that the CIS patients are included in the 55% number.
I then tried to read all of the releases reported today. It appears that only the Canadian press has printed the very exciting statement that "...The researchers also found fewer cases of CCSVI in patients who had experienced a single MS attack, called clinically isolated syndrome, compared to those with more advanced symptoms of the disease -38 per cent versus about 80 per cent..."
I agree that this would be earth shattering news, but unfortunately I think its just bad reporting because - using the information in the Buffalo release - that 280 of the 500 subjects had MS, and assuming that somehow the CIS subjects were included in the 280: in order to get from 55% with CCSVI to 80%, you have to assume that 167 of the 280 MS subjects actually only had CIS.
That just doesn't make sense to me - I hope I'm wrong.
Sawdoggie wrote:Nowhere did I see where "more advanced symptoms" was defined. This could be a subset of who knows what number of people within the MS group.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users