This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge & Support Community

We have two new pages on the www.ccsvi.org website that will be of interest to TIMS readers---

CCSVI Treatment Aftercare--written by Joan and science writer Al Ossorio
http://www.ccsvi.org/index.php/helping- ... -aftercare

and an excellent Meta Analysis of the research by Al Ossorio--
http://www.ccsvi.org/index.php/advanced ... h-analysis

hope these are helpful!
cheer

Exactly the kind of information that I was looking for. Excellent.

Thank you very much, Cheer.

I was excited earlier this year when we had enough individual studies on CCSVI that meta-studies began to emerge. And that the meta-analyses, including this one, show that the results are favorable to CCSVI.

Here were the "quick facts" regarding future CCSVI research:

Future CCSVI research must avoid the mistakes of past efforts. Specifically, CCSVI research must

1.Use a consistent definition of CCSVI

2.Use reliable technologies for measuring CCSVI

3.Ensure that investigators get hands-on training from experienced CCSVI researchers (poorly trained researchers have contributed to unreliable data about CCSVI)

4.Develop new methods for defining and measuring

Do we have a consistent definition of CCSVI? How reliable must the technologies be? Is doppler ultrasound indeed unreliable? Phlebography in the hands of someone whose never treated CCSVI, is that reliable? I agree about the need for our researchers to be experienced or trained. I am not sure what can be done to develop new methods for defining and measuring. The only thing I can think of is Dr. Zamboni's plethysmography approach.

Cece wrote: Do we have a consistent definition of CCSVI? How reliable must the technologies be? Is doppler ultrasound indeed unreliable? Phlebography in the hands of someone whose never treated CCSVI, is that reliable? I agree about the need for our researchers to be experienced or trained. I am not sure what can be done to develop new methods for defining and measuring. The only thing I can think of is Dr. Zamboni's plethysmography approach.

We do have a criteria established by Zamboni...which is being used by BNAC, Dr. McDonald, Arizona doppler and others around the world. But it is unreliable if not done to protocol. The new Canadian meta analysis published today proves that very point. Doppler means nothing if TCD and correct protocol are not followed.

But there was a huge range on a study-by-study basis -- including one study that didn't see evidence of blood vessel changes in any of 76 people with or without MS.

That could be because not everyone agrees how to read ultrasound tests to look for those changes, or is trained to see them, researchers said.

"It may well be that the different groups are using different ultrasound techniques," Laupacis told Reuters Health. "It's not a straightforward kind of test."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/ ... C220111003

But MRV and venography are finding clearer evidence of CCSVI.
I think Al's meta-analysis is the best out there....if people haven't read it yet, it's a tremendous work:
http://www.ccsvi.org/index.php/advanced ... svi-and-ms

cheer