Talk:McDonald criteria

note

I searched around and found several sites listing the criteria i'm not sure exactly what can be copied from other places and added here with out effecting copy write. Let me know if i did anything wrong this is my first wikipedia edit.

Updated Criteria, 2010

I'm going to update this article since the McDonald criteria was updated in 2010 (unless this already has the updated criteria, that is). FutureInfoPro (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Technical data about the 2010 revision

It seems that for some readers it is too technical to speak about the accuracy of the 2010 revision. I would like to discuss that here

--Juansempere (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The source you use to support this assertion is a primary source, not a secondary, as recommended by WP:MEDRS. If there were secondary sources that supported your information I would have much less of a problem with it. Mentioning specific details of an individual study, regardless, is outside the scope of WP's medical articles. Meta-analyses, sure. practice guidelines, sure. But that's not what this is.

Furthermore, please see WP:BURDEN, which states:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material...

I reverted this addition twice, inadvertently breaking my 1RR rule (i'm new at this). I have provided a rationale in my edit summary. The WP:BRD cycle suggests that before replacing your addition, WP:CONSENSUS should be reached here on the talk page.

The upshot of all this is that I would very much appreciate it if you could remove the material until we come to an understanding here.

Thanks in advance. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 00:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

in the event that you don't see this within the next day or so, I will revert it myself, per WP:BRD, until we have some kind of understanding here. If you are unable to do that, I understand, but I just want to be clear that if i do re-revert that I am not trying to start an edit war here, and very hesitant to revert again myself. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 00:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

"Estimations" very informal

The "Estimations" section is written in rather informal language, with a few minor errors. I would normally just touch this up myself even if I'm not a domain expert, but in a few cases here I think there's a bit of interpretation required by a domain expert. For example, I believe this:

the sensitivity of McDonald criteria is low respect pathologically defined MS because around 25% of MS cases are silent silent MS cases[5]

...should be this:

the sensitivity of McDonald criteria *are* low *with respect to* pathologically defined MS*,* because around 25% of MS cases are --silent-- silent MS cases[5]. That's three errors in the first sentence, even if you don't count the comma. And the use of "in any case" to lead off the section is quite informal, as is the beginning of the next sentence "Of course, anyway McDonalds" (which also contains an error, "McDonalds").

It would be great if there's a domain expert watching this page who could touch up this section; it's probably a five-minute job.

Also, throughout the article there is use of both "McDonald criteria" and "The McDonald criteria" interchangeably, in grammatically indistinguishable contexts. Can a domain expert standardize this to however it would be used in domain-specific parlance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleWalrus (talk • contribs) 18:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)