ReviewNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2008
Definition of non-responders: biological markers.
Review in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cladribine and ocrelizumab induce differential miRNA profiles in peripheral blood mononucleated cells from relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis patients.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
- Cytokines as Biomarkers of Treatment Response to IFN β in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis.Multiple sclerosis international · 2014Article
- Genomics and proteomics: Applications in autoimmune diseases.Pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Identification of reliable biomarkers in multiple sclerosis patients would be highly desirable to help disease activity and progression monitoring, and evaluate response to treatments. The field has gradually shifted from the aim to find the perfect surrogate marker to the construction of composite markers with higher performances, taking advantage of the technologies allowing unbiased screening (i.e., microarrays, proteomics, etc.). Despite the fact that very interesting results have been produced, no approach has yet made it to the patient's bedside.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18690495What 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.