This Article  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • 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 this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

James T. Caroscio, MD; Jeffrey A. Cohen, MD; Melvin D. Yahr, MD
Department of Neurology

Shaul Kochwa, PhD
Departments of Pathology and Medicine

Henry Sacks, PhD
Biomathematical Sciences Mount Sinai School of Medicine 1 Gustave L. Levy PI New York, NY 10029

Arch Neurol. 1984;41(5):473.

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

In Reply.

—We are pleased to learn from Dr Hershey et al that the IgG determinations in their studies were performed by "blinded" technicians, but this was not clear from their original article. As for our use of the upper limit of 0.66 for the IgG index, this was established as the upper limit in our laboratory.

After we reviewed the letter of Dr Hershey and colleagues, we reran the statistical analysis on our patients for the IgG index. Since there were so few cases between the 0.5 and 0.9 range, the "false-positive" rate for this measurement for the CSF IgG index was minimally changed. This test remains a very nonspecific one in our laboratory. We certainly agree with Dr Hershey and his colleagues that standardization of both clinical and laboratory criteria is important for future studies. . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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