ReviewDer Nervenarzt2005
[High-dose intravenous immunoglobulins in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. An update].
Review in Der Nervenarzt, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Administration of intravenous immunoglobulins in neurology. An evidence-based consensus: update 2010].Der Nervenarzt · 2011Review
- [Current use of immunoglobulins in neurology].Der Nervenarzt · 2008Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The immunomodulatory treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) with high-dose intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg) has been discussed with some controversy in the context of evidence-based medicine. The recent publication of eight trials investigating several aspects of MS has shed some more light on the role of IVIg treatment in MS. Here we summarize and critically discuss the new data in the context of previous studies on this treatment. In relapsing-remitting MS, IVIg remain a second-line treatment when other licensed treatments are not possible. Currently there is no role for IVIg in secondary progressive MS. Similarly, the use of IVIg during an acute relapse shows no benefit in addition to standard steroid treatment. The initiation of IVIg therapy after a clinically isolated syndrome has delayed the occurrence of definite MS, and this may become a new indication. Furthermore, previous data suggesting that IVIg can reduce the incidence of postpartal relapses have been substantiated. However, those trials unfortunately lack appropriate internal control groups. By and large, previous recommendations for the use of IVIg in MS are supported by the new data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.