In the conclusion section of the article it states, "Although contrast studies are more accurate, they may sometimes be unnecessary."

This contradicts the entire purpose of medical imaging---if you did not want accuracy, then what is the purpose of getting the imaging.

If it is determining whether it is cost-effective, then wouldn't they instead argue that having MRI's to track progression aren't necessary (I personally don't believe they are)

Honestly, I don't believe this article has medical significance

I'm not sure where to stand on this, the thing that threw me off was the Denistry (sp) but alos was some of thier own misspellings (sp) I've had 4 MRI's all with and with out contrast, I went from 3-40 lesions and the last 2 went from 8-40 lesions over a 2 year period and they have never found an active lesion, so I'm on the fence with this one, even though they are using the new guidelins showing any conflicts and there were a lot of them, but seemed useless to the study. The disappointment for me was it was to short and was not impressed with the LP's but I did read more and I still am on the fence other than they want support for a run for MS in London. I may be wrong so just so you know this is my opinion, but still a nice find
Take Care
Dave

I just found this scribd account about gadolinium based contrasting agents. Check it out for more accurate information regarding the new man-made disease caused by these GBCAs. in the second like it says that there are other reasons for getting this diseae besides kidney disease. I think the studies support that MS patients might be high risk for this disease if they get MRIs.

http://www.scribd.com/gasfgd

http://www.scribd.com/doc/89429265/New-Insights-Into-Nephrogenic-Systemic-Fibrosis

Sorry. This appears to me as junk science. The statistical discussion about confidence intervals is unclear as is the whole hypothesis. A scientific study with significant findings is not published in a blog!

There are people allergic to cat scan dye and I have read about illness/and allergic reactions caused by gadolinium (rarely). But always good to know there is a risk. No one told me, A friend had a skin site reaction and I read up on it.

Anyone with kidney disease, on dialysis are definately at more risk. The web sites below give more information.

But I am unaware of any other contrast agent that demonstrates enhancing lesions ( active inflammation on MRI). I have had only 3 flares in 22ys but have had enhancing lesions at other times. They have only be seen by contrast. What these guys are talking about on his blog sounds very technical and unrealistic to the average radiologist or patient. Only a radiologist could make any real sense of it.

The only other way to handle risk is to never have contrast. Well that seems risky to me when you are trying to find out what is happening in your brain and spinal cord.

Seems everything in life is a calculated risk and all you can do is to arm yourself with knowledge.

More info:

http://www.ajronline.org/content/167/4/847

http://www.yourlegalguide.com/gadolinium-side-effects/

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/571577

Melanie

I sure to much of the dye is not good for us ,but they need to have more contrast for the MRI.

Cathy

i didnt read it- but i no we have a weak blood brain barrier- so would that dye- get through to our brain-cause more damage- i wont ever have dye again-personaly- hugs