Talk:Multiple sclerosis

Differential diagnosis

Why is there no section on differential diagnosis? I should think this is particularly important as there are other disease entities to consider, given the disease's murky history. 184.145.94.3 (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Please help us write one. Find good sources and post them here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

As per NMSS [1] "Differential Diagnosis Mnemonic (VITAMINS) - V - Vascular Multiple lacunar infarcts; CADASIL; spinal arteriovenous malformation - I - Infectious..." Facts707 (talk) 08:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Edit of Potentially Dangerous Dated Info

Under Management>Acute Attacks, there are dated statements about use of corticosteroids, referencing ref#63, which was dated 2004. That's before some of the infectious agents started to be (more) isolated (e.g., see the earlier cited note in the article about EBV). The reference itself mentions that some of the side effects of these steroids include a Human Herpes Virus, which EBV is one of. Generally speaking, corticosteroids clear the way for infections to proliferate. The reference itself states, on page 53:

"Side effects were reported in two of the systematic reviews and two RCTs. These included herpes simplex, herpes zoster, severe ankle oedema, fractured neck of femur, acute anxiety and severe depression;117 weight gain, oedema, gastrointestinal symptoms and psychological symptoms;119 raised blood glucose;126 infection and raised blood pressure.121"

Not enough info is included on the side effects or on the possibility that corticosteroids invite a herpes virus (more info out there on for those who look). This dated information, left unqualified, could be dangerous to a lazy practioner or a convincing patient asking for meds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmd7172 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

NEJM

doi:10.1056/NEJMra1401483 JFW | T@lk 15:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Macdonald criteria revised also: doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30470-2 JFW | T@lk 13:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Outdated Sources and Factual Discrepancies

Although the article on multiple sclerosis is eloquent and generally informative, many of its attributions are rather obsolete and possibly misleading (or even erroneous). For instance, the sentence in the prognosis section - "Almost 40% of people with MS reach the seventh decade of life" - is derived from an article published in May 1987, yet there have been significant advances in longevity since then, so it is likely that this claim is, in fact, false. (In fact, the 2019 Merck Manual article claims that "Life span is shortened only in very severe cases" [cf. https://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/neurologic-disorders/demyelinating-disorders/multiple-sclerosis-ms].) In addition, the article does not consider the possible efficacy of acetyl-L-carnitine, which may potentially have some benefit in mitigating fatigue among MS patients with low levels of L-carnitine (cf. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/multiple-sclerosis/expert-answers/acetyl-l-carnitine/faq-20057801). Finally, the article discounts the clinical efficacy of oral cannabinoid extracts, even though another Mayo Clinic article suggests that certain medical cannabinoid extracts may alleviate spasticity and pain among some MS patients (cf. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/multiple-sclerosis/expert-answers/cannabis-for-ms-can-it-help-treat-symptoms/faq-20112500). Because the article exerts significant influence as a gold-star recipient, it would be great if it could be updated to reflect recent advances in MS treatment and diagnosis.

2600:1700:F5A1:2460:2103:FE62:D17A:4EA7 (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Vaccinations show no association is without citation

Under Other: "Vaccinations were studied as causal factors; however, most studies show no association." This statement is without citation and misleading. The citations used do not support this statement. There is a snippet in the citation used that suspects Hepatitis B vaccination may cause MS but finds no correlation. This alone does not support the complete statement that "most studies show no association to all vaccinations"

Furthermore: "some shots may trigger an infection that causes you to relapse. If you get a live vaccine (which contains tiny, weakened amounts of a live virus), this is more likely to happen." citation: https://www.webmd.com/multiple-sclerosis/multiple-sclerosis-and-vaccines

"Multiple sclerosis presenting as late functional deterioration after poliomyelitis." citation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2397915/

"Certain striking similarities to the epidemiological patterns found in paralytic poliomyelitis have been noted" and "Multiple sclerosis has been shown to be rare between the equator and latitudes 30-35 degrees...In poliomyelitis a similar variation with latitud occurs" citation: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1600-0404.1966.tb02007.x

These statements contraindicate the misleading statement from the main article and postulate a link of MS and Poliomyelitis (or Post-polio syndrome). Considering the polio vaccine is a live attenuated virus that leads to vaccine derived polio outbreaks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A0C6:1200:EDC2:D071:347A:4EFE (talk) 08:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

In conclusion: "virus bad unless injected into you for profit to prevent you from contracting the virus..then virus good. Hurr durr derp da derp. derp da derp a doo." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A0C6:1200:EDC2:D071:347A:4EFE (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

EBV as the primary cause of Multiple Sclerosis

131.152.38.194 and Discospinster, I read the article and it is pretty amazing.

Although I don't claim myself to be an expert in this area, the article seemed to be the best design short of a randomized controlled clinical trial, which would be unethical for finding out the association of EBV and MS. It is a study done with access to 10,000,000 subjects, allowing them to run a sort of pseudo randomized controlled trial. They ruled out reverse-causality and confounding factors. It is also published in Science, with funding from the NIH, done in association with the Department of Defense, and the authors are at prominent schools on the East Coast.

This is a primary source. Although Wikipedia recommends to avoid primary sources, I believe this should be balanced against use up-to-date evidence. Additionally, this can be viewed as a review article in a sense, as there is plenty of literature published on EBV for more than 10 years, which this article references. Finally, the authors clearly state "...suggest EBV as the leading cause of MS," which complies with wikipedia's recommendation to "only describe conclusions made by the source" when citing primary literature.

My suggestion is to write it as "EBV is suspected to be the primary cause of MS" and in the infobox "Likely EBV." And also bolster it with one of the many news stories about this particular article? Maybe someone else can weigh in?

Lukelahood (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Considered your (valued) analysis, it seems foolish to reject this out-of-hand per primary source, but I have other recommendations for how to incorporate it:

1. Still primary, so move it to the Research section (perhaps with its own sub-heading) until we have secondary reviews. Considering how exciting this news is, one would think those reviews would come relatively quickly.
2. No addition yet to the infobox or the lead. Once we start breaching MEDRS, we might find ourselves on a slippery slope we can't justify elsewhere.
3. To incorporate the news stories, pick the highest quality one, and make use in the cite journal template of the lay parameters. To see how to do that, go to Menstrual cycle and look at how this sentence is cited: There are four theories on the evolutionary significance of menstruation ... that method allows use to cite the journal study, but adds on the lay press summary url. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I moved it to Research, and removed the (primary source) changes to the article, copyedited, and cleaned up the citation, ending up here. But I can't find a publication in PubMed to correctly cite this to using a lay-url. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I carefully reviewed the article and others citing it before adding it as a cause. It's hard not to read this as the culmination of years long research pointing at EBV as the cause. For a secondary source, take this perspective article:

1. The simple statement "Correlation doesn't equal causation" doesn't do the article justice. The study was very carefully done and took great care to avoid confounding and reverse causality.
2. This is not just any random article in a random journal. This is Science and a very well designed study as one can read in reviews from experts, like here
3. I would vote for including it as `likely EBV` in cause, but understand if you want to wait for a few weeks until there's been more expert commentary. 46.86.61.45 (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

References

^ Those look like secondary sources to me. Especially the first one, albeit published by the same journal. Lukelahood (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you find a PMID ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

PMID 35025606 for Epstein-Barr virus and multiple sclerosis Lukelahood (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The other one doesn't look like something that would be in pubmed

That doesn't seem to be the same study. I'm talking about linking the primary study via cite journal, and adding a lay-url as in the example at Menstrual cycle. If there are other studies you all also want to include here, that's a different story! I read that you endorsed keeping this study in the article, in spite of it being a primary study, because of the strengths like large sample size. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Luklahood, this article is so dated ... ugh ... search the text for the other mention of EBV, which is cited to eons ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

2007 and 2008, yeah a long history of EBV I suppose.

Try to clear up some confusion: 1) I saw the primary article and liked it, 2) I wanted to bolster it with something like New York Times (done, thanks for the advice), 3) Then the original poster (IP address) gave that review article published by Science as well on the same day, in which they boldly call it the trigger of MS, 4) You asked for the latter pubmed address, it seemed, so I gave it to youLukelahood (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Added the pubmed and all that.. should be good.Lukelahood (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Great! Thx for all you do here, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

You too, thanks for weighing in.Lukelahood (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, issues like you describe are common in research and commonly found in Wikipedia editing, but Wikipedia has these policies and guidelines because we must follow, not lead. If we get it wrong just once, there could be consequences. If the finding is as significant as it seems, there will shortly be secondary reviews and then they can be incorporated as such. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Gotchya, I hear you, better sources will come about.Lukelahood (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this belongs in the article under "Research". It certainly paves the ground for intervention trials with vaccination. JFW | T@lk 14:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

UNDUE content

@Jnosak, Nethtam, and Guichard132: WP:UNDUE and excessively detailed content has been added here; see WP:SS and Management of multiple sclerosis, which is more appropriate for detail on secondary management. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

needs update on disease processes

Both the top para and later sections of this article assume inflammatory activity is the core of MS.

However this is now being questioned. See e.g. Smouldering multiple sclerosis: the ‘real MS’. Gavin Giovannoni, Veronica Popescu, Jens Wuerfel, ... First Published January 25, 2022 Review Article Find in PubMed https://doi.org/10.1177/17562864211066751 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCJC777 (talk • contribs) 05:59, May 22, 2022 (UTC)

Protection needed

Ajpolino this article has an IP who persists in adding information cited to an advocacy organization; would it be reasonable to change the protection here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

And non-MEDRS sources, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I find this funny. First, I am not sure what you mean by advocacy organization. If you talking about National MS Society, I wouldn't call it an "advocacy" organization. NMSS funds research and clinical trials. Second, assume that it is an advocacy organization. Does it mean that anything reported on their site should not be used? Let me give you an example: NMSS has funded a research to calculate the prevalence of MS in the US. The result is published in a reputable Neurology journal. I can't site the paper because it is "primary". Can't I site the news article about this paper on NMSS? Such an organization is in fact a reputable resource to get these non-medical data from. Note that I am not using their site as a reference for medical data!! 2607:F470:6:4001:B43D:3C63:AE9:CDAA (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Anyways I found a recent review article containing this data and changed the references. But as an academician, I find this general rule of not citing anything from these resources very funny. 2607:F470:6:4001:B43D:3C63:AE9:CDAA (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, it is the "law of the land". While I can reason with finding it funny, if you get deeper into WP-editing, you will see how it saves us from a lot of troubles (edit wars) and helps us providing accurate info. Cinadon36 20:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The editor who changed to a secondary review was BehMon. If IP2607 is BehMon, then we have edit warring. So, it does look like protection is needed on this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes that IP address is indeed me. I looked up the formal definition of Edit War on Wikipedia and my actions clearly do not satisfy the conditions of an Edit War. Anyways I won’t touch the article agian. No need to worry. For now I will only propose my edits in this talk. BehMon (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits using an advocacy org as a source

The recent edits here on 28 June, here on 5 July and here on 6 July all introduce content sourced to the MS Society, rather than the underlying secondary literature. They also introduce grammatical issues and WP:UNDUE content into the lead, rather than first working content into the article body that is later summarized to the lead, resulting in a lead that is now burdened by WP:RECENTISM. The edits also introduce text that lacks globalization, focusing on US numbers instead of worldwide. While the attempt to update the number of people with MS in the US is a good one, there are surely secondary reviews (rather than advocacy sources) for that kind of data, and hopefully such data can be updated without deteriorating the writing in the lead. I suggest reverting the lot (update: I have now repaired the lead SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)) so that the new editors can start over, using WP:MEDRS sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Worlwide prevalence and incidence are available in this recent review; we need not use US-only data from an advocacy org-- especially not in the lead.

• Lane J, Ng HS, Poyser C, Lucas RM, Tremlett H (July 2022). "Multiple sclerosis incidence: A systematic review of change over time by geographical region". Mult Scler Relat Disord. 63: 103932. doi:10.1016/j.msard.2022.103932. PMID 35667315. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I have mostly repaired the lead, removing duplicated or overly detailed content to the body of the article, replaced some non-RS, and fixed ref name errors and WP:CITEVAR breaches in this series of edits. BehMon using this PMID template filler will result in consistent citations, and save other editor time. Also, please have a look at how to use named refs, as in my edits. Thanks for switching out some of the advocacy sources to recent secondary reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I applaud @SandyGeorgia:. Good job. Cinadon36 19:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, but the article remains a dated mess :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The Disease-modifying treatments section of the article is a complete mess. I think it would be better to put the data for all these disease modifying treatments in a table. I would be happy to hear any objections to this idea. BehMon (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would be helpful, as tables can be harder for summarizing different aspects, as well as harder for future editors to maintain. If you want to ''propose'' a table by posting it first here on talk, that might work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Treatments

The treatments section is a complete mess. Do we want to include exact clinical trial data in the article (e.g. X was reduced the annual relapse rate by n% compared to Y) or we want to stick with the moderate, mild, ... terminology? Now there are numerical data for some treatments but not for all.

The issue is that there is not head-to-head trials for all pairs of drugs. I propose including the numerical data of the pivotal clinical trials that have led to FDA/EMA/... approvals + the year of the approval.

The idea of putting all these things in a table might also work but I don't want to spend two hours building the table and someone removing it just because it is hard to maintain. So I think we should not go with the table idea now. BehMon (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I d say if the table can be found in a strong Med-RS, it would be very hard for someone to remove. If you make up a table combining data from various sources, it would prob be taken away shortly. Cinadon36 22:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

See WP:NOT; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a journal, not a textbook, etc. Word summaries digestible to a layperson are more encyclopedic and enduring ... no, we don't want numerical data and overly technical content. Summarizing reviews in plain language and encyclopedic tone can be hard to do, but that's how it's best done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

We should resist, I think, the temptation to compare available therapies with each other, especially based on individual trial data of each molecule. Meta-analysis is not something one can or should do in a Wikipedia article, while a simple "comparison table" will be likely misleading (as it won't reflect baseline differences or confounding factors) and I will be the first one to remove it. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that such a table can be misleading and people may be temped to compare across trials. BehMon (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

There is another way to go: I can surely find a very strong MED-RS classifying treatments as "highly effective" and "moderately effective" and so on.

The current situation is that the article has numerical data for some treatments and has no data for others. This is also a bit misleading. BehMon (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Let me dig a bit deeper for good MED-RS on this matter. BehMon (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I did a bit of search in the literature. The following paper seems to be a very good MED-RS for treatments:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/joim.13215

In particular, I was thinking about adding a table similar to Table 1 of this paper. BehMon (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I hope you will begin to use the Diberri tool or a {{PMID}} template when referring to sources, for example, either:

• PMID 33258193 or
• Piehl F (June 2021). "Current and emerging disease-modulatory therapies and treatment targets for multiple sclerosis". J Intern Med. 289 (6): 771–791. doi:10.1111/joim.13215. PMC 8246813. PMID 33258193.

Repeating, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a textbook or journal. There are (at least) two problems with building a table similar to that in the source:

1. How would you avoid copyvio? The open access license of that article is not compatible with Wikipedia's licensing.
2. How would any of that very technical jargon be useful to a layreader?

Summarizing journal literature in encyclopedic form is an art that has to be learned when editing Wikipedia; a summary in English is more useful than a table. (I'd also be curious to know if a recent source with authorship beyond one country, Sweden, exists.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

There are almost 4,000 recent MEDRS sources available in Pubmed, including several thousand that are freely available, and 500 freely available published within the last year, so there are plenty of sources, and using the best of those would be ideal. Is the consensus group in PMID 34422112 highly regarded? Is there a broader consensus group guideline or position statement available? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Re. copyright, such tables (listing of clinical trial outcomes for registered MS drugs) usually don't include enough original authorship to enjoy copyright protection – much like a telephone directory cannot be copyrighted. See also here: [2]. Hope this helps. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Assuming we are talking about replicating some version of this table from this source, let's get a second opinion from the expert: @Diannaa:. I'm often messed up on copyvio (although I would still find such a table unhelpful in the article). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, the paper is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which is not a compatible license. I suggest making a list of the various available treatments, removing all the supplementary info such as dosage information, route of administration, etc. Regardless of the copyright issue, that level of detail is beyond the scope of what Wikipedia is (i.e. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide), so we should not be including it anyways. I recommend making the list alphabetical within each type of drug. — Diannaa (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Diannaa! That was my thinking as well ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

PS, although I don't think this level of detail belongs in this article at all, which uses Summary style. Detail goes to Management of multiple sclerosis, with this article being a broad overview of the key points. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, if there's a sub-article that's a better location for this data. — Diannaa (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I've moved a chunk of excess detail, per WP:SS to Talk:Management of multiple sclerosis, for incorporation there if not already included. A bot will come through in a bit to repair the missing citations here.[3] Those edits were sample only; more could be done, remembering to take care with the important attribution requirements of WP:CWW. BehMon, perhaps you'd be interested in working on that sub-article, as treatment seems to be of interest to you ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Sure I will work on that. BehMon (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Great. BehMon, if you copy any of that text in to Management of multiple sclerosis, be sure you are aware of WP:CWW, and add in edit summary the words, with a link ... content copied from multiple sclerosis ... to provide attribution back to this article, where it came from. I suspect you may not need to copy it, as it can probably be entirely re-written to better and newer sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Tristario please don't remove maintenance tags without resolving the problem. Readers are confronted with the following text:

Studies show that only 16% of people with relapsing MS needed a cane to walk after 20 years.[medical citation needed][87] For people with relapsing MS, approximately 50% who do not receive disease-modifying treatments will develop secondary progressive MS after 20 years, however newer treatment options may mean this rate will be significantly lower.[155] A more recent 2016 study found only 11.3% transitioned to secondary progressive MS during the ten-year follow-up period.[156][155][87]

This is gibberish; none of the timelines are explained, and then we suddenly get a "more recent". "More recent" than which part of the paragraph, which talks about what and when? Newer treatment options" relative to when? More recent than what ? I understand it's a 2021 review talking about 2016 data; that still doesn't clear up what this paragraph is trying to say about what based on when. That is, if we have something outdated in the article, we should remove it, along with the "more recent" qualifier. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I removed the clarification tag because I thought you were just confused by the fact that the review was dated to 2021. I wasn't the one that originally added this content, I've been trying to add secondary sources, and then match what's in the secondary sources. I'll try to see if I can make it more clear. Tristario (talk) 02:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I understood that ... :) THe problem is the pre-existing text is a mess, which was why I added the tag. Thanks for working on it, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

PS, I wouldn't trust any of what was there before :) A complete rewrite would work rather than trying to retrofit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I've now made an edit, which I hope makes it clearer. I agree that a rewrite is probably needed, especially since the other sources in the section are so old Tristario (talk) 05:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Tristario yes, much better. I think you'll find throughout this article that starting over is often better than trying to rewrite what's there. See my changes; if you dislike anything, or it changes meaning, feel free to revert. The one thing it would be nice to have-- if the sources provide it-- is:

• The availability of treatments that modify the course of MS (since when ... what year or decade more or less?) has improved prognosis;

eg... the availability of treatments that modify the course of MS beginning in the 1980s ... or some such ... (I haven't look at sources, don't know when that change occurred) ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion Tristario (talk) 01:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

PS, the article is in such bad shape that all I've tried to do is prevent it from getting worse since it lost status as a featured article ... a top-to-bottom rewrite is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I've made an attempt at rewriting the prognosis section, using newer sources. This probably isn't the final version, and some more information (eg. on life expectancy) needs to be added. Any adjustments or comments etc. are welcome --Tristario (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Good start! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I guessed that this is what you meant, but there's not citation on that sentence, and two on the next sentence. If you could cite that sentence, I'll read the source to figure out the intent of the sentence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Both of those sources mention it, but it's mainly based on the lancet source. I added that one Tristario (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

More sources (2022) on EBV and MS

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-022-00770-5 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165572822001308

Time for an update to causes section I think. (t · c) buidhe 07:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Thx, Buidhe! Here are the citations:

• Houen G, Trier NH, Frederiksen JL (2020). "Epstein-Barr Virus and Multiple Sclerosis". Front Immunol. 11: 587078. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2020.587078. PMC 7773893. PMID 33391262.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
• Aloisi F, Cross AH (October 2022). "MINI-review of Epstein-Barr virus involvement in multiple sclerosis etiology and pathogenesis". J Neuroimmunol. 371: 577935. doi:10.1016/j.jneuroim.2022.577935. PMID 35931008.

and I'll work on this shortly. The first (Houen) is redlinked by the reliability script, so as this is a recent issue, I'll stick with Aloisi. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Done, [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Famous people with MS

Do we want to list people with MS? I was surprised not to see a list in the article.

I'm linking this list: List of people with multiple sclerosisDogru144 (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I see that it was linked in the See Also section.Dogru144 (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Do these kind of articles comply with GNC? Cinadon36 18:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it should meet WP:NLIST as there are article such as this and this which discuss the topic of famous people with MS Tristario (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)