McDonald criteria & Differtial Diagnosis

CureOrBust · Post by **CureOrBust** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 4:24 am

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?

Post by **jimmylegs** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 5:44 am

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...

CureOrBust · Post by **CureOrBust** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 am

I found the fulltext, I will read it tomorrow.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi- ... 0/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.

Post by **jimmylegs** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:06 am

it's VERY loose. so are the rest of the criteria in my opinion.