Author
Stephen C. Reingold
Other affiliations: National Multiple Sclerosis Society
Bio: Stephen C. Reingold is an academic researcher from Salisbury University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Multiple sclerosis & Clinical trial. The author has an hindex of 37, co-authored 68 publications receiving 34843 citations. Previous affiliations of Stephen C. Reingold include National Multiple Sclerosis Society.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
University of Amsterdam1, University of Toronto2, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Toulouse3, Cleveland Clinic4, Tohoku University5, Charles University in Prague6, University College Dublin7, University of Basel8, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai9, Lund University10, University College London11, University of California, San Francisco12, Mayo Clinic13, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston14
TL;DR: These revisions simplify the McDonald Criteria, preserve their diagnostic sensitivity and specificity, address their applicability across populations, and may allow earlier diagnosis and more uniform and widespread use.
Abstract: New evidence and consensus has led to further revision of the McDonald Criteria for diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. The use of imaging for demonstration of dissemination of central nervous system lesions in space and time has been simplified, and in some circumstances dissemination in space and time can be established by a single scan. These revisions simplify the Criteria, preserve their diagnostic sensitivity and specificity, address their applicability across populations, and may allow earlier diagnosis and more uniform and widespread use.
8,883 citations
Royal College of Physicians1, University of Cambridge2, University of California, San Francisco3, University of Graz4, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai5, National Institutes of Health6, University of British Columbia7, VU University Amsterdam8, National Multiple Sclerosis Society9, Lund University10, University of Arizona11, University College London12, University of California, Irvine13, Mayo Clinic14, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston15
TL;DR: The revised criteria facilitate the diagnosis of MS in patients with a variety of presentations, including “monosymptomatic” disease suggestive of MS, disease with a typical relapsing‐remitting course, and disease with insidious progression, without clear attacks and remissions.
Abstract: The International Panel on MS Diagnosis presents revised diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis (MS). The focus remains on the objective demonstration of dissemination of lesions in both time and space. Magnetic resonance imaging is integrated with dinical and other paraclinical diagnostic methods. The revised criteria facilitate the diagnosis of MS in patients with a variety of presentations, including "monosymptomatic" disease suggestive of MS, disease with a typical relapsing-remitting course, and disease with insidious progression, without clear attacks and remissions. Previously used terms such as "clinically definite" and "probable MS" are no longer recommended. The outcome of a diagnostic evaluation is either MS, "possible MS" (for those at risk for MS, but for whom diagnostic evaluation is equivocal), or "not MS."
6,720 citations
VU University Amsterdam1, University of Rennes2, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University3, University of Düsseldorf4, University of Basel5, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai6, Foothills Medical Centre7, National Institutes of Health8, University of Toronto9, Lund University10, Mayo Clinic11, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston12
TL;DR: New evidence and consensus now strengthen the role of these criteria in the multiple sclerosis diagnostic workup to demonstrate dissemination of lesions in time, to clarify the use of spinal cord lesions, and to simplify diagnosis of primary progressive disease.
Abstract: New diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis integrating magnetic resonance image assessment with clinical and other paraclinical methods were introduced in 2001. The "McDonald Criteria" have been extensively assessed and used since 2001. New evidence and consensus now strengthen the role of these criteria in the multiple sclerosis diagnostic workup to demonstrate dissemination of lesions in time, to clarify the use of spinal cord lesions, and to simplify diagnosis of primary progressive disease. The 2005 Revisions to the McDonald Diagnostic Criteria for MS should simplify and speed diagnosis, whereas maintaining adequate sensitivity and specificity.
4,862 citations
University College London1, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia2, VU University Medical Center3, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital4, National Multiple Sclerosis Society5, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University6, Medical University of Graz7, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute8, Fukushima Medical University9, New York University10, University of Düsseldorf11, University of Basel12, Corinne Goldsmith Dickinson Center for Multiple Sclerosis13, University of Manitoba14, Hebron University15, St. Michael's Hospital16, Johns Hopkins University17, University of Copenhagen18, University of British Columbia19, University of Bari20, Claude Bernard University Lyon 121, French Institute of Health and Medical Research22, University of California, San Francisco23, Mayo Clinic24, Salisbury University25, Cleveland Clinic26
TL;DR: The 2017 McDonald criteria continue to apply primarily to patients experiencing a typical clinically isolated syndrome, define what is needed to fulfil dissemination in time and space of lesions in the CNS, and stress the need for no better explanation for the presentation.
Abstract: The 2010 McDonald criteria for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis are widely used in research and clinical practice. Scientific advances in the past 7 years suggest that they might no longer provide the most up-to-date guidance for clinicians and researchers. The International Panel on Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis reviewed the 2010 McDonald criteria and recommended revisions. The 2017 McDonald criteria continue to apply primarily to patients experiencing a typical clinically isolated syndrome, define what is needed to fulfil dissemination in time and space of lesions in the CNS, and stress the need for no better explanation for the presentation. The following changes were made: in patients with a typical clinically isolated syndrome and clinical or MRI demonstration of dissemination in space, the presence of CSF-specific oligoclonal bands allows a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis; symptomatic lesions can be used to demonstrate dissemination in space or time in patients with supratentorial, infratentorial, or spinal cord syndrome; and cortical lesions can be used to demonstrate dissemination in space. Research to further refine the criteria should focus on optic nerve involvement, validation in diverse populations, and incorporation of advanced imaging, neurophysiological, and body fluid markers.
3,945 citations
TL;DR: An international survey of clinicians involved with MS revealed areas of consensus about some terms classically used to describe types of the disease and other areas for which there was lack of consensus and proposed standardized definitions for the most common clinical courses of patients with MS.
Abstract: Standardization of terminology used to describe the pattern and course of MS is essential for mutual understanding between clinicians and investigators. It is particularly important in design of, and recruitment for, clinical trials statistically powered for expected outcomes for given patient populations with narrowly defined entry criteria. For agents that prove safe and effective for MS, knowledge of the patient populations in definitive clinical trials assists clinicians in determining who may ultimately benefit from use of the medication. An international survey of clinicians involved with MS revealed areas of consensus about some terms classically used to describe types of the disease and other areas for which there was lack of consensus. In this report, we provide a summary of the survey results and propose standardized definitions for the most common clinical courses of patients with MS.
3,457 citations
Cited by
More filters
University of Amsterdam1, University of Toronto2, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Toulouse3, Cleveland Clinic4, Tohoku University5, Charles University in Prague6, University College Dublin7, University of Basel8, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai9, Lund University10, University College London11, University of California, San Francisco12, Mayo Clinic13, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston14
TL;DR: These revisions simplify the McDonald Criteria, preserve their diagnostic sensitivity and specificity, address their applicability across populations, and may allow earlier diagnosis and more uniform and widespread use.
Abstract: New evidence and consensus has led to further revision of the McDonald Criteria for diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. The use of imaging for demonstration of dissemination of central nervous system lesions in space and time has been simplified, and in some circumstances dissemination in space and time can be established by a single scan. These revisions simplify the Criteria, preserve their diagnostic sensitivity and specificity, address their applicability across populations, and may allow earlier diagnosis and more uniform and widespread use.
8,883 citations
VU University Amsterdam1, University of Rennes2, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University3, University of Düsseldorf4, University of Basel5, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai6, Foothills Medical Centre7, National Institutes of Health8, University of Toronto9, Lund University10, Mayo Clinic11, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston12
TL;DR: New evidence and consensus now strengthen the role of these criteria in the multiple sclerosis diagnostic workup to demonstrate dissemination of lesions in time, to clarify the use of spinal cord lesions, and to simplify diagnosis of primary progressive disease.
Abstract: New diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis integrating magnetic resonance image assessment with clinical and other paraclinical methods were introduced in 2001. The "McDonald Criteria" have been extensively assessed and used since 2001. New evidence and consensus now strengthen the role of these criteria in the multiple sclerosis diagnostic workup to demonstrate dissemination of lesions in time, to clarify the use of spinal cord lesions, and to simplify diagnosis of primary progressive disease. The 2005 Revisions to the McDonald Diagnostic Criteria for MS should simplify and speed diagnosis, whereas maintaining adequate sensitivity and specificity.
4,862 citations
University College London1, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia2, VU University Medical Center3, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital4, National Multiple Sclerosis Society5, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University6, Medical University of Graz7, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute8, Fukushima Medical University9, New York University10, University of Düsseldorf11, University of Basel12, Corinne Goldsmith Dickinson Center for Multiple Sclerosis13, University of Manitoba14, St. Michael's Hospital15, Hebron University16, Johns Hopkins University17, University of Copenhagen18, University of British Columbia19, University of Bari20, French Institute of Health and Medical Research21, Claude Bernard University Lyon 122, University of California, San Francisco23, Mayo Clinic24, Salisbury University25, Cleveland Clinic26
TL;DR: The 2017 McDonald criteria continue to apply primarily to patients experiencing a typical clinically isolated syndrome, define what is needed to fulfil dissemination in time and space of lesions in the CNS, and stress the need for no better explanation for the presentation.
Abstract: The 2010 McDonald criteria for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis are widely used in research and clinical practice. Scientific advances in the past 7 years suggest that they might no longer provide the most up-to-date guidance for clinicians and researchers. The International Panel on Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis reviewed the 2010 McDonald criteria and recommended revisions. The 2017 McDonald criteria continue to apply primarily to patients experiencing a typical clinically isolated syndrome, define what is needed to fulfil dissemination in time and space of lesions in the CNS, and stress the need for no better explanation for the presentation. The following changes were made: in patients with a typical clinically isolated syndrome and clinical or MRI demonstration of dissemination in space, the presence of CSF-specific oligoclonal bands allows a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis; symptomatic lesions can be used to demonstrate dissemination in space or time in patients with supratentorial, infratentorial, or spinal cord syndrome; and cortical lesions can be used to demonstrate dissemination in space. Research to further refine the criteria should focus on optic nerve involvement, validation in diverse populations, and incorporation of advanced imaging, neurophysiological, and body fluid markers.
3,945 citations
TL;DR: This work identified progressive disabling mental impairment progressing to dementia as the central feature of DLB, and identified optimal staining methods for each of these and devised a protocol for the evaluation of cortical LB frequency based on a brain sampling procedure consistent with CERAD.
Abstract: Recent neuropathologic autopsy studies found that 15 to 25% of elderly demented patients have Lewy bodies (LB) in their brainstem and cortex, and in hospital series this may constitute the most common pathologic subgroup after pure Alzheimer's disease (AD). The Consortium on Dementia with Lewy bodies met to establish consensus guidelines for the clinical diagnosis of dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and to establish a common framework for the assessment and characterization of pathologic lesions at autopsy. The importance of accurate antemortem diagnosis of DLB includes a characteristic and often rapidly progressive clinical syndrome, a need for particular caution with neuroleptic medication, and the possibility that DLB patients may be particularly responsive to cholinesterase inhibitors. We identified progressive disabling mental impairment progressing to dementia as the central feature of DLB. Attentional impairments and disproportionate problem solving and visuospatial difficulties are often early and prominent. Fluctuation in cognitive function, persistent well-formed visual hallucinations, and spontaneous motor features of parkinsonism are core features with diagnostic significance in discriminating DLB from AD and other dementias. Appropriate clinical methods for eliciting these key symptoms are described. Brainstem or cortical LB are the only features considered essential for a pathologic diagnosis of DLB, although Lewy-related neurites, Alzheimer pathology, and spongiform change may also be seen. We identified optimal staining methods for each of these and devised a protocol for the evaluation of cortical LB frequency based on a brain sampling procedure consistent with CERAD. This allows cases to be classified into brainstem predominant, limbic (transitional), and neocortical subtypes, using a simple scoring system based on the relative distribution of semiquantitative LB counts. Alzheimer pathology is also frequently present in DLB, usually as diffuse or neuritic plaques, neocortical neurofibrillary tangles being much less common. The precise nosological relationship between DLB and AD remains uncertain, as does that between DLB and patients with Parkinson's disease who subsequently develop neuropsychiatric features. Finally, we recommend procedures for the selective sampling and storage of frozen tissue for a variety of neurochemical assays, which together with developments in molecular genetics, should assist future refinements of diagnosis and classification.
3,733 citations
Stanford University1, HCL Technologies2, Universidad Mayor3, UCL Institute of Child Health4, University of Bonn5, University of California, Los Angeles6, Umeå University7, New York University8, Columbia University9, Yonsei University10, Albert Einstein College of Medicine11, University of Pavia12, University of Melbourne13, Karolinska Institutet14, University of Calgary15
TL;DR: A revised definition of epilepsy brings the term in concordance with common use for individuals who either had an age‐dependent epilepsy syndrome but are now past the applicable age or who have remained seizure‐free for the last 10 years and off antiseizure medicines for at least the last 5 years.
Abstract: Epilepsy was defined conceptually in 2005 as a disorder of the brain characterized by an enduring predisposition to generate epileptic seizures. This definition is usually practically applied as having two unprovoked seizures >24 h apart. The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) accepted recommendations of a task force altering the practical definition for special circumstances that do not meet the two unprovoked seizures criteria. The task force proposed that epilepsy be considered to be a disease of the brain defined by any of the following conditions: (1) At least two unprovoked (or reflex) seizures occurring >24 h apart; (2) one unprovoked (or reflex) seizure and a probability of further seizures similar to the general recurrence risk (at least 60%) after two unprovoked seizures, occurring over the next 10 years; (3) diagnosis of an epilepsy syndrome. Epilepsy is considered to be resolved for individuals who either had an age-dependent epilepsy syndrome but are now past the applicable age or who have remained seizure-free for the last 10 years and off antiseizure medicines for at least the last 5 years. "Resolved" is not necessarily identical to the conventional view of "remission or "cure." Different practical definitions may be formed and used for various specific purposes. This revised definition of epilepsy brings the term in concordance with common use. A PowerPoint slide summarizing this article is available for download in the Supporting Information section here.
3,491 citations