This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Community: Knowledge & Support

Welcome to the world's leading forum on Multiple Sclerosis research, support, and knowledge. For over 10 years, This is MS has provided an unbiased community dedicated to Multiple Sclerosis patients, caregivers, and affected loved ones.
It is currently Fri May 24, 2013 4:46 pm


All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 5:24 am 
Online
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:00 pm
Posts: 2695
Location: Sydney, Australia
I have recently been noticing that a lot of published papers talk of participants being included via the McDonald criteria, which is considered the "gold standard" for diagnosing MS. So I went and brushed up on exactly what the meant.

Looking at the McDonald criteria, there is no reference to testing for differential diagnosis. :?

Does that mean that these studies could be including people who have only met the McDonald criteria and have not had any tests to exclude a differential diagnosis that would present and satisfy the McDonald criteria?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:44 am 
Offline
Volunteer Moderator

Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:00 pm
Posts: 7627
is mcdonald the one that has that bit about 'lack of any other explanation'? i think that's what they mean by doing differential dx stuff but i haven't looked into it in a while...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:30 am 
Online
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:00 pm
Posts: 2695
Location: Sydney, Australia
I found the fulltext, I will read it tomorrow. :oops:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/112140800/PDFSTART

I did a quick scan and it appears to say "if nothing better explains the presentation, then it is MS".

If that's as far as it goes, it's a little loose for my likings, as it depends on the person making the diagnosis, and how thorough they feel is appropriate. But, I will read and see.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 9:06 am 
Offline
Volunteer Moderator

Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:00 pm
Posts: 7627
it's VERY loose. so are the rest of the criteria in my opinion.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Related topics
 Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. McDonald Criteria

LisaLou

3

709

Wed May 11, 2011 5:33 pm

jimmylegs View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. International panel revises 'McDonald Criteria'

squiffy2

0

754

Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:27 am

squiffy2 View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. RRMS vs PPMS, diagnostic criteria

ljm

1

1445

Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:33 pm

bromley View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. New diagnostic criteria for Multiple Sclerosis published

squiffy2

1

876

Mon Feb 15, 2010 8:11 am

shye View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Paediatric MS:examining utility of the McDonald 2010 critera

squiffy2

0

437

Wed Oct 26, 2011 7:48 am

squiffy2 View the latest post

 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: