FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 353:1744-1746 October 20, 2005 Number 16 Next

	Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

	Full Text PDF PDA Full Text Purchase this article Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited E-mail When Letters Appear Related Article by Drazen, J. M. Related Article by Van Assche, G. Related Article by Kleinschmidt-DeMasters, B.K. Related Article by Langer-Gould, A. PubMed Citation

To the Editor: According to the established definition of multiple sclerosis,¹ the condition in the patient described by Kleinschmidt-DeMasters and Tyler (July 28 issue)² should not have been diagnosed as multiple sclerosis. Apart from the unusual clinical findings, no oligoclonal bands were detected in two separate examinations of the cerebrospinal fluid, and repeated magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans obtained over the course of several years showed new and enlarging, but never enhancing, lesions. The most convincing argument against a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis is the neuropathology: no lesions that are characteristic for multiple sclerosis were detected. The patient described by . . . [Full Text of this Article]

HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org Comments and questions? Please contact us. The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.