This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge & Support Community

Does anyone know if Zamboni's paper about angioplasty treatment from earlier in the year at the Charing Cross Symposium and the paper just released are referring to the same study group? I was under the impression that the paper from Charing Cross was a prelude to the one in the Journal of Vascular Surgery. But, going back and reading both papers again, I've noticed some inconsistencies.

I believe they are the same group.

Sometimes when something is published they ask you to change things at the peer review. One example was that in Dr Simka's small study he had 3 probable MS persons who had reflux, but he was asked to eliminate that group from the final paper due to lack of diagnostic consistency for them--

mrhodes40 wrote:I believe they are the same group.

Sometimes when something is published they ask you to change things at the peer review. One example was that in Dr Simka's small study he had 3 probable MS persons who had reflux, but he was asked to eliminate that group from the final paper due to lack of diagnostic consistency for them--

Allow me to dive in and insert a q without making new topic (and I don't know if same group, always assumed it was except for what Marie just pointed out), that being are the 100 allowed to speak freely now? Seems we would have been catching some waves from them already since the paper is out. Seems awful quiet without them... I know we have at least 1 on here right but what about the rest!?

Kinda ties in with the topic so hopefully the cops wont get me for thread hijacking ;)

Mark

There has been two on here from the Buffalo group that went (Candy and ?), but they both posted once or twice and quit - wonder if they were told too...

That could be the reason, Marie.

One thing I noticed is that the Charing Cross paper mentioned that 75 patients were treated (51 RRMS, 13 SPMS and 11 PPMS). But the more recent paper states 65 patients were treated (35 RRMS, 20 SPMS and 10 PPMS). Also, the earlier paper stated a number of patients were given the procedure in the midst of an acute attack. The newer paper states that an attack within 30 days preceding was part of the exclusion criteria.

So maybe there were cases that the peer review committee asked the authors to remove from their reporting.

Another question I have about the paper in the Journal of Vascular Surgery regards one of the neurological outcomes. The authors say that the rate of RRMS patients who were relapse free went from 27% before the procedure to 50% after. Is this rate the same as number of relapse free patients? Or is there some other weighting factor? Because, 27% of the 35 RRMS patients is 9.45, and 50% is 17.5. You can't really have a fraction of a person.