Multiple sclerosis diagnostic criteria

McDonald diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis are MRI criteria used in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS) were introduced in 2001, revised in 2005 and again recently in 2010.

This latest revision improves sensitivity from 46% to 77% with a slight tradeoff in specificity (slight deterioration from 94% to 92%), with an overall accuracy of 86% 2. For the previous criteria please see McDonald diagnostic criteria 2001-2005.

As before the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis requires establishing disease disseminated in both space and time.

Dissemination in space requires ≥1 T2 bright lesions in two or more of the following locations 1:

  • periventricular
  • juxtacortical
  • infratentorial
  • spinal cord
    • if a patient has a brainstem / spinal cord syndrome, the symptomatic lesion(s) are excluded from the criteria, not contributing to the lesion count

Dissemination in time can be established in one of two ways:

  • a new lesion when compared to a previous scan (irrespective of timing)
    • T2 bright lesion and/or gadolinium-enhancing
  • presence of asymptomatic enhancing lesion and a non-enhancing T2 bright lesion on any one scan

In addition to the above criteria, the diagnosis of primary progressive multiple sclerosis has also been revised. The diagnosis now requires:

  • ≥1 year of disease progression (this can be determined either prospectively or retrospectively)
  • plus two of the following three criteria
    • brain dissemination in space ( ≥1 T2 bright lesions in ≥1 of juxtacortical, periventricular, infratentorial areas)
    • spinal cord dissemination in space (≥2 T2 bright lesions)
    • positive CSF (oligoclonal bands and/or elevated IgG index) ms

Metabolic syndrome diagnostic criteria

According to guidelines from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) and the American Heart Association (AHA), metabolic syndrome is diagnosed when a patient has at least 3 of the following 5 conditions:
  • Fasting glucose ≥100 mg/dL (or receiving drug therapy for hyperglycemia)
  • Blood pressure ≥130/85 mm Hg (or receiving drug therapy for hypertension)
  • Triglycerides ≥150 mg/dL (or receiving drug therapy for hypertriglyceridemia)
  • HDL-C <40 mg/dL in men or <50 mg/dL in women (or receiving drug therapy for reduced HDL-C)
  • Waist circumference ≥102 cm (40 in) in men or ≥88 cm (35 in) in women; if Asian American, ≥90 cm (35 in) in men or ≥80 cm (32 in) in women metabolic

Metabolic syndrome diagnostic criteria

The WHO diagnostic criteria for metabolic syndrome[37] include:

  • Insulin resistance as identified by 1 of the following:
    • Type 2 diabetes
    • Impaired fasting glucose
    • Impaired glucose tolerance
    • Glucose uptake below the lowest quartile for background population under investigation under hyperinsulinemic, euglycemic conditions (in patients with normal fasting glucose levels < 110 mg/dL)
  • Plus any 2 of the following:
    • Antihypertensive medication and/or systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 90 mm Hg
    • Plasma triglycerides ≥ 150 mg/dL;
    • HDL cholesterol < 35 mg/dL in men or < 39 mg/dL in women;
    • Body mass index > 30 kg/m2 or waist-hip ratio* > 0.9 in men or > 0.85 in women
    • Urinary albumin excretion rate ≥ 20 mcg/min or albumin/creatinine ratio ≥ 30 mg/g


The American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria for the diagnosis of diabetes

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria for the diagnosis of diabetes are any of the following: [1]

  • A hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level of 6.5% or higher; the test should be performed in a laboratory using a method that is certified by the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) and standardized or traceable to the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) reference assay, or
  • A fasting plasma glucose (FPG) level of 126 mg/dL (7 mmol/L) or higher; fasting is defined as no caloric intake for at least 8 hours, or
  • A 2-hour plasma glucose level of 200 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L) or higher during a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), or
  • A random plasma glucose of 200 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L) or higher in a patient with classic symptoms of hyperglycemia (ie, polyuria, polydipsia, polyphagia, weight loss) or hyperglycemic crisis diabetes555

systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) Classification Criteria

A consensus group of experts on SLE, the SLICC, has proposed revised criteria for SLE , Classification as having SLE by the SLICC criteria requires either that a patient satisfy at least 4 of 17 criteria, including at least 1 of the 11 clinical criteria and one of the six immunologic criteria, or that the patient has biopsy-proven nephritis compatible with SLE in the presence of antinuclear antibodies (ANA) or anti-double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) antibodies. SLICC-Criteria

Anion Gap and its utility in diagnosis

Anion Gap
The anion gap provides an estimation of the unmeasured anions in the plasma and is useful in the setting of arterial blood gas analysis. It is especially useful in helping to differentiate the cause of a metabolic acidosis, as well as following the response to therapy. Its basic premise is based on the fact that electroneutrality must exist in the body, or in other words the net charges of serum anions, which includes albumin, bicarbonate, chloride, organic acids and phosphate must equal the net charges of the serum cations, which includes calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium.
In clinical practice, the anion gap is calculated using three lab values (Na+, Cl-, and HCO3-).

Anion Gap = Na+ – (Cl- + HCO3-)

[Occasionally, you may see an alternative equation:
Anion Gap = [Na+] + [K+] – [Cl-] – [HCO3-]. This equation is preferred by some nephrologists, because of the wide fluctuations that may occur with potassium in renal disease. ]

Serum sodium represents over 90 percent of the extracellular cations, whereas chloride and bicarbonate represent approximately 85 percent of the extracellular anions. It follows then, that the anion gap in normal conditions will be a positive number since the sum of the serum anions used in the calculation represent a smaller value compared to the serum sodium concentration. The normal value for the anion gap is 12 +/-4.

In order to grasp the utility of this equation, lets assume a patient has developed a lactic acidosis. The addition of an organic acid (anion) will automatically reduce the serum bicarbonate level based on a simple acid – base interaction. When we calculate the anion gap in this patient, we will notice that the anion gap has increased or in other words the unmeasured anions have increased relative to the measured anions. In clinical practice, we usually group the condition of metabolic acidosis into two groups: normal anion gap metabolic acidosis, and elevated anion gap metabolic acidosis.
Over the years, several useful tables have been developed to help differentiate these two conditions. Here are some examples:

Typical causes of an elevated anion gap metabolic acidosis
Diabetic ketoacidosis.
Paraldehyde, phenformin.
Iron, isoniazid, inhalants.
Lactic acidosis.
Ethylene glycol, ethanol (alcoholic ketoacidosis).
Salicylates, solvents, starvation.

Pneumonic: MUDPILES
Other causes of an elevated anion gap: Increased Unmeasured Anions: metabolic acidosis, dehydration, therapy with Na+ salts of unmeasured anions (Na citrate, lactate, acetate), alkalosis. Decreased unmeasured cations: hypocalcemia, hypokalemia, hypomagnesemia.

Typical causes of a normal anion gap metabolic acidosis
Gastrointestinal bicarbonate loss: diarrhea, Pancreatic fistula. Hyperalimentation. Posthypocapnia. Renal tubular acidosis. Ureteroenterostomy. Drugs: ammonium chloride, hydrochloric acid.
Typical causes of a low anion gap
hypoalbuminemia, hypercalcemia, hyperkalemia, hypermagnesemia, lithium toxicity, multiple myeloma.

Important tip: Always consider other factors that may affect the calculated anion gap. A perfect example would be a patient with ethylene glycol toxicity and hypoalbuminemia. In this case, the patient may have a normal anion gap even though toxic levels of ethylene glycol are present.


5 types of doctors you will meet on social media

Twitter is a communication platform, and, therefore, it is a neutral medium. It’s not the medium itself, but how you use the medium that makes Twitter “good” or “bad.” In my five years of being an anonymous and five months of being a named individual on Twitter, I have come to realize that different people use Twitter for different purposes. In general, these are the five people (or doctors) I have met on Twitter. They have enriched my experience on social media and taught me much about life and doctoring.

1. The knowledge distributor. These are the ones who frequently tweet and retweet various information, news, latest studies, guidelines, and opinions. Following a few of these people will add to your knowledge base. They often have tens of thousands of followers, and they usually have tens of thousands of tweets. They are good at disseminating information. Their timeline is full of information. The downside? They read like a newsfeed and therefore often lack the personal and social engagement that is an enjoyable part of Twitter. But they serve their purpose well. I learn lots of new things from them.

2. The court jester. The court jester is the one who entertains, enlightens and yet educates at the same time. They’re the ones who put up a mirror to our faces. They poke fun at important issues, sometimes even taboos, and bring up a very important message. They are often the ones behind the mask who would tell the truth when no one else would. They provide the behind-the-scenes look at the medical industry (or any industry) and challenge the status quo. As you can guess, they’re often anonymous. They’re the ones the lawyers and administrators warn you about. But I see great value in following them. Because they tell the truth behind their masks, I reckon every industry needs some of these, with respect of course. I can think of a few doctors who are anonymous who make a massive impact through their tweets and blogs.

3. The social collaborator. They are fun to hang out with. They are one of the main reasons for joining social media. It is social after all. There are lots of conversations about life. Lots of food photos and baby photos. And cat photos, of course. One must never forget the abundance of cat photos on Twitter. Sometimes, in their eminently sociable space, the line between public and personal lives get crisscrossed. Raw emotions, anger, bitterness and hurts make their way into their tweets. It can be painful to watch. Sometimes downright unprofessional. But I love following them, because at the end of the day, we’re human. I need to always be in touch with the raw and unpredictable nature of human emotions and relationships.

4. The relentless commentator. The devil’s advocate. They seem to have an opinion on and a comment for anything and everything. Some of them good, some of them very critical and negative. They always provide a contrasting view, and they’re happy to let loose with their opinions. You’ll find them debating certain issues with passion and their timeline reads like an angry verbal joust. It’s good to follow them because there are always many sides to any story, and you get to learn from them. However, the line between respectful difference versus discourteous disagreement can be very thin at times. The first rule of Twitter: Be respectful of others.

5. The thought leader. Here’s the one everyone wants to be. The person who leads the world with contemporary ideas and tweets their sophisticated perspective to everyone. Twitter truly adds to their impact and in some immeasurable ways, they are truly changing the world. They are examples of what’s good on Twitter. The synthesis and harnessing of people and expertise. There are not too many of them around, true thought leaders. When you’ve found them, they’re a treasure to follow as they enrich your days with colorful thoughts and perspectives. I’m certain that they would be as amazing in real life as they are on Twitter.

It would be great to follow a few of these different kinds of tweeps to challenge your thinking and enhance your perspective. What about yourself? What kind of a twitter person are you? My guess is that most of us would be a bit of all of them. Who we are on Twitter is probably defined by who we are in real life and what our purposes are in joining social media.

Eric Levi is an otolaryngologist in Australia who blogs at his self-titled site, Dr Eric Levi.  He can be reached on Twitter @DrEricLevi.

Page 1 of 42
1 2 3 42