4.4 Article

Magnetic resonance spectroscopy of normal appearing white matter in early relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: correlations between disability and spectroscopy

期刊

BMC NEUROLOGY
卷 4, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2377-4-8

关键词

-

资金

  1. Schering Plough
  2. Neuroinvest

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: What currently appears to be irreversible axonal loss in normal appearing white matter, measured by proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy is of great interest in the study of Multiple Sclerosis. Our aim is to determine the axonal damage in normal appearing white matter measured by magnetic resonance spectroscopy and to correlate this with the functional disability measured by Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite scale, Neurological Rating Scale, Ambulation Index scale, and Expanded Disability Scale Score. Methods: Thirty one patients (9 male and 22 female) with relapsing remitting Multiple Sclerosis and a Kurtzke Expanded Disability Scale Score of 0-5.5 were recruited from four hospitals in Andalusia, Spain and included in the study. Magnetic resonance spectroscopy scans and neurological disability assessments were performed the same day. Results: A statistically significant correlation was found (r = -0.38 p < 0.05) between disability (measured by Expanded Disability Scale Score) and N-Acetyl Aspartate (NAA/Cr ratio) levels in normal appearing white matter in these patients. No correlation was found between the NAA/Cr ratio and disability measured by any of the other disability assessment scales. Conclusions: There is correlation between disability (measured by Expanded Disability Scale Score) and the NAA/Cr ratio in normal appearing white matter. The lack of correlation between the NAA/Cr ratio and the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite score indicates that the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite is not able to measure irreversible disability and would be more useful as a marker in stages where axonal damage is not a predominant factor.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据