This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Henry J. Kaminski, MD
University Hospitals of Cleveland

JAMA. 1988;260(2):182.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—

The American Medical Association's Council on Scientific Affairs¹ sings the praises of magnetic resonance imaging (MR I) and indeed this praise is well deserved in many areas. Imaging of the posterior fossa and intrinsic spinal cord lesions is clearly superior with MR I. However, the enthusiasm for this new tool needs to be tempered in at least two very important areas.

In the evaluation of multiple sclerosis, MRI is much more sensitive in detecting abnormalities than computed tomography, but an abnormal study result is not synonymous with the disease. The diagnosis remains a clinical one.² In the study by Ormerod et al³ of disseminated lesions in isolated optic neuritis, three of 37 controls had lesions on MRI consistent with multiple sclerosis. Kent and Larson⁴ estimated a false-positive rate of 0.06 (false-positive studies divided by all positive studies in the studied population) from the . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?