Talk:Transverse myelitis/Archive 1

Unsourced statements

This article has a lot of scary statistics in it. I have two friends with TM (they don't know each other) and it would be good if there was proof of some basis in fact for these stats. I have added the unsourced statement tag so that it will highlight it on the global lists. Kert01 14:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC) These statistics may be scary but, they are true! I have done extensive research after having been hospitalized and diagnosed w/ transverse myelitis. Being a nurse, I have rather extensive research available to me through my schools and continuing education. Staistics say that 36% will recover completely, a bit better then the 20% stated in the article. Johns Hopkins remains the best place for info if you are willing to sit down and read an hour or more and just how indepth you want to get.---- Wendy E McGuire[reply]

What about me?

"Unfortunately, the prognosis for significant recovery from acute transverse myelitis is poor in approximately 80% of the cases; that is, significant long-term disabilities will remain." I had transverse myelitis three years ago and I can walk and even run just fine now. Does this mean that I'm incredibly massively lucky that I can even feel my lower extremities much less walk? Nick Warren

No Nick, one of my friends is now fine, and has recently done a walking marathon - it must be the article that is portraying things badly, and that's not good news. Kert01 11:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find this information to be accurate and true to what is in most literature (See www.myelitis.org). I also had an incident of acute TM in 2007 and required physical and occupational therapy, and lost the ability to walk and fine motor functions such as typing and writing and feeding myself, but regained those after four or so months, but continue with pain and spasticity to my arms and legs. Using a few people to describe the whole prognosis of a disease is not a valid statistic. Life long deficits and pain are not uncommon. ---- Jesse Rodriugez November 18th, 2008

I have a question. Does any one think this could be caused by aspertame in diet soda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.239.252.212 (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. 75.185.51.31 (talk) 04:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt it. The immune system typically only responds to proteins, and not to specific compounds. Aspertame is similar to a dipeptide, but is much smaller than the kinds of things that antibodies usually react to. I think you're barking up the wrong tree on that one. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 06:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link to myelitis!

Hey I added a link to myelitis page in the see also section the myelitis article is fairly short, are they related not possibly merge? Zakster22` (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My son has TM, 4 years out. TM is very very scary. What needs to be noted, TM is DIFFERENT for every person,,,, ie , where is your lesion located, how much myelin was damaged... etc.

There was something terribly interesting in this article... my son tested positive for Catch Scratch Dieseas (not the medical name for it tho), and I have never, up to this point, seen this associated with TM...? though his Dr's were terribly intriqued at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.85.86.57 (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Movie director Wes Craven has had Transverse Myelitis in his youth

I read an Article in "Der Spiegel" (German paper). It says:

Wes Craven: Damals wollte ich tatsächlich Kampfpilot bei der Navy werden. So einer, der richtig vom Flugzeugträger abhebt. Der Spiegel: Was ist Ihnen in die Quere gekommen? Wes Craven: Das wissen nicht viele, aber mit 19 Jahren war ich für eine ganze Weile von der Brust abwärts gelähmt. Ich hatte Transverse Myelitis, eine Form von Rückenmarkentzündung. Drei Monate lang konnte ich mich gar nicht bewegen, ein Jahr dauerte die Reha, und es brauchte noch viel länger, bis ich mich ganz erholt hatte. Der Spiegel: Gruselig! Wes Craven: In der Tat. Das war's dann natürlich mit dem Pilotentraum. Stattdessen habe ich mir überlegt, Autor zu werden. Durch diese Fast-Begegnung mit dem Tod habe ich angefangen, Gedichte und Kurzgeschichten zu schreiben. Mit Anfang zwanzig sah ich mich schon als Schriftsteller, aber dann hat mich die Filmwelt quasi aus dem Nichts angesprungen.

I translate for you: Wes Craven: At that time I wanted to become a fighter pilot with the Navy. The kind that lifts off from an air carrier. Der Spiegel: What did get in your way? Wes Craven: Not many people know this, but as a 19-year-old I was paralysed from the chest downward. I had Transverse Myelitis, a form of inflammation of the spinal cord. For 3 months I could not move at all, had rehab for a year, and it lasted a lot longer until I had recovered completely. Der Spiegel: That is scary! Wes Craven: Indeed. That was the end of the pilot dream. Instead I considered becoming an author. By nearly encountering death I began writing poems and short stories. In my early twenties I saw mayself as a writer, but then film business came out of nowhere. -----------------> Sorry for my poor English! <----------------

Here the fact mentioned on Wes Craven's homepage

Question: : I'm a sophomore at Wheaton College and I've heard rumors that you graduated from here. Wes Craven:: I did go there. I started there in 1959 or 1960. I went there for a year and then I got a very serious illness called transpolar myelitis, which is a viral infection of the spine and I was paralyzed from the chest down for about three months and then I went home to recuperate for the rest of the year and then I went back to Wheaton from '61-'64

Interesting isn't it? Güldenstern (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

collaboration

references

have removed a few primary references--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
added a few "citations needed" ( and images)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored quite a few of the sections you deleted because seeing as this article will undergo significant review it's unlikely dubious claims will stick. Indiscriminately removing things like this is not constructive. Rather tag it with {{MEDRS}} and then it can be possible to review the section after reading a review. Only really egrarious nonsense should be removed like this.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

above points erased by CFCF[1]..39 edits[2].....(left message on talk page Peter C.) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

have done edits to the causes section, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict

Here is my edit, presumably accidently erased by CFCF. I will add later when it is quieter =) Matthew Ferguson (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccinations. Rarely, transverse myelitis has been reported to develop several days to a few months after vaccination. Between 1970 and 2009 there were 37 reported cases worldwide of transverse myelitis developing soon after vaccination (e.g. against hepatitis B, measles-mumps-rubella, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis and others).^[1]

Matthew Ferguson 57, sorry I've reinstated it. Please continue, I will first be adding content tomorrow, I'm done for now. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

For anyone who wants to help out please send User:Peter.C a mail, we've amassed a number of excellent sources. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this: http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/transversemyelitis/detail_transversemyelitis.htm

[3] TM Consortium Working group diagnostic criteria

Etiquette for editing for the MCOTM

Hello,

It has come to my attention that there may be some friction between the editors here for the MCOTM and I think it would be good to set some ground rules before continuing. Everyone has their idea of what an article should be and with a large group of people editing at a time, the lines can get blurred between peoples idea of what should be done. I think this collaboration is only going to be successful if we are able to push a lot of high quality content to the article over the month but we cannot accomplish that if we have users curating content to their own desires. What I suggest all editors do moving forward to prevent conflict is to discuss large modifications on this talk page for purpose of explaining the reason behind removing the content, and perhaps spur a good discussion on the best way to move forward.

On a related note, what is everyone's opinion on having an IRC chat room for the purpose of collaborating in real time to prevent conflicts and more effectively collaborate on the article? If not, would everyone like to say what they will be working on for the next few days? Peter.C • talk • contribs 14:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IRC might be useful. Suspect it would be empty most of the time however. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 14:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there separate sections for "pathophysiology" and "causes". Seems overlap and repetition... Matthew Ferguson (talk) 14:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest organizing signs and symptoms section into sensory, motor and autonomic. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)'[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. Unless anyone else plans to do so I will be working on the Epidemiology section. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, most sources approach signs and symptoms according to the level of the lesion (cervical, thoracic, lumbar) so maybe we should do that. Wonder if there is a good spine diagnram to accompany this or perhaps we will need to make one. ping LT910001 if they are aware of anything suitable? Many thanks, Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, in my opinion this is the most reader-friendly and high-quality image, but I'm not sure if that's what you're looking for. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks suitable, thanks for looking. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction between the current "causes"/"pathophysiology" section and diagnostic criteria of acute transverse myelitis?

Several sources kept referring to the "Transverse Myelitis Consortium Working Group" consensus on nosology and diagnostic criteria of acute transverse myelitis.^[2] However I note that most of the causes we currently list are specified in the exclusion criteria of this definition. Does this just refer to acute transverse myelitis, or is there a contradiction here? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ Agmon-Levin, N; Kivity, S; Szyper-Kravitz, M; Shoenfeld, Y (November 2009). "Transverse myelitis and vaccines: a multi-analysis". Lupus. 18 (13): 1198–204. PMID 19880568.
^ "Proposed diagnostic criteria and nosology of acute transverse myelitis". Neurology. 59 (4). Transverse Myelitis Consortium Working Group: 499–505. 27 August 2002. doi:10.1212/WNL.59.4.499. PMID 12236201.

[Agmon-Levin2009-1] Agmon-Levin, N; Kivity, S; Szyper-Kravitz, M; Shoenfeld, Y (November 2009). "Transverse myelitis and vaccines: a multi-analysis". Lupus. 18 (13): 1198–204. PMID 19880568.

[WorkingGroup2002-2] "Proposed diagnostic criteria and nosology of acute transverse myelitis". Neurology. 59 (4). Transverse Myelitis Consortium Working Group: 499–505. 27 August 2002. doi:10.1212/WNL.59.4.499. PMID 12236201.

[1]

[2]