Our system is currently under heavy load due to increased usage. We're actively working on upgrades to improve performance. Thank you for your patience.
2005
DOI: 10.1002/ana.20703
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2005 revisions to the “McDonald Criteria”

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

16
3,319
3
93

Year Published

2006
2006
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4,507 publications
(3,456 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
16
3,319
3
93
Order By: Relevance
“…Our study group consisted of 521 patients, all fulfilling Mc Donald's criteria for MS (Polman et al., 2005) and all recruited by collaborating genetic and clinical centers from Croatia and Slovenia, which belong to the same geographic area where the populations share a similar ethnic background (Table 1) (Zupan, Vrabec, & Glavač, 2013). The course of MS was classified according to the clinical data (Lublin & Reingold, 1996), and disease severity was estimated using the Expanded Disability Status Scale and Multiple Sclerosis Severity Score at the time when blood samples for genetics analysis were taken (Kurtzke, 1983; Roxburgh et al., 2005).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our study group consisted of 521 patients, all fulfilling Mc Donald's criteria for MS (Polman et al., 2005) and all recruited by collaborating genetic and clinical centers from Croatia and Slovenia, which belong to the same geographic area where the populations share a similar ethnic background (Table 1) (Zupan, Vrabec, & Glavač, 2013). The course of MS was classified according to the clinical data (Lublin & Reingold, 1996), and disease severity was estimated using the Expanded Disability Status Scale and Multiple Sclerosis Severity Score at the time when blood samples for genetics analysis were taken (Kurtzke, 1983; Roxburgh et al., 2005).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…into the analysis, it became clear that these higher lesion load measurements on 3 T do not necessarily lead to different classifications according to the clinical International Panel (IP) criteria for MS. Only one single patient in this study received the diagnosis of dissemination in space based on the 3 T but not on the 1.5-T examination [30]. Additionally, a short-term followup study of this patient cohort clearly demonstrated that higher lesion load measurements on 3 T versus 1.5 T do not lead to an earlier diagnosis of MS [31], neither according to the revised IP criteria nor to the recently introduced Swanton criteria [7,32].…”
Section: Conventional High Field Mri At 3 T In Multiple Sclerosismentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Lesions in the spinal cord are frequently observed in MS patients and are already present in early stages of the disease [7,94,95]. In contrast to experiences in brain imaging, high field MRI applications up to 3T failed to demonstrate a higher sensitivity in the detection of spinal cord abnormalities.…”
Section: Spinal Cordmentioning
confidence: 95%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The patients included in the NMSRB and OMSR were diagnosed according to the Poser 3 or the McDonald 4, 5, 6 criteria by Norwegian neurologists. However, the coverage in the NMSRB was low (approximately 50% in our study), and we developed a set of inclusion criteria to exclude possible cases included in NPR due to misclassification: (i) more than one visit registered in NPR with MS as main or codiagnosis or (ii) MS and optic neuritis (ON) or (iii) MS or ON in combination with the prescription of a MS drug from NPR/NPD or (iv) MS or ON in combination with code from a rehabilitation institution.…”
Section: A Step Back For Ms Prevalence Studies In Norwaymentioning
confidence: 99%