Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23897406›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Neurology2013

Treatment trials in progressive MS--current challenges and future directions.

Marcus W Koch, Gary Cutter, Peter K Stys, V Wee Yong, Luanne M Metz

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Neurology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. A comparison of clinical outcomes in PPMS in the INFORMS original trial data set.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Marcus W KochMultiple Sclerosis Clinic, Foothills Hospital, AC137A, SSB, 1403-29 ST NW, Calgary, AB T2N 2T9, Canada. mwkoch@ucalgary.ca
Gary Cutter
Peter K Stys
V Wee Yong
Luanne M Metz
Foothills Medical Centre · CAUniversity of Calgary · CASt. Vincent's Birmingham · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The introduction of immunomodulatory treatments has transformed the management of patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS), but has had no consistent benefit in progressive MS. Patients with primary or secondary progressive MS, therefore, are faced with relentless functional decline that remains without treatment. Clinical trials in progressive MS are clearly needed, but their design and conduct is challenging, and different from that of trials in relapsing-remitting MS. Challenges to reliable measurement of clinical progression, uncertainties about the natural history of progressive MS, and the unclear role of imaging outcomes all impede optimal trial design. Clinical trials in progressive MS have used time to a predefined change on the Expanded Disability Status Scale as their main outcome measure, which has had important consequences for trial duration and has led to inclusion of only a highly selected minority of patients. Here, we review the current approach to clinical trial design in progressive MS, outline key ongoing challenges, and suggest strategies to overcome such hurdles.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicHumansMultiple Sclerosis, Chronic ProgressiveTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID23897406
OpenAlexW1999211418

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.