Observational studyDer Nervenarzt2015
[Stem cell transplantation for multiple sclerosis. Hamburg experiences and state of international research].
Observational study in Der Nervenarzt, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Self-reported changes in the expanded disability status scale score in patients with multiple sclerosis after autologous stem cell transplants: real-world data from a single center.Clinical and experimental immunology · 2019Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAutologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (aHSCT) is still not the standard treatment for highly inflammatory multiple sclerosis (MS). Even though randomized controlled trials are lacking, predictors for treatment response have been established. Since 2007, ten patients have received aHSCT in Hamburg.
objectiveTo present observational data from patients treated in Hamburg and a review of the literature.
methodsDescriptive statistics were used for evaluating the course of the expanded disability status scale (EDSS) as a measure for clinical outcome, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and neuropsychology. New gadolinium and T2-MRI uptake lesions per scan were compared. In addition, a systematic review of the currently available literature was performed.
resultsThe Hamburg series can be divided in two groups, one group including four patients with chronic progressive MS with low inflammatory activity (median EDSS = 6.25, 0.5 relapses per year, no gadolinium-enhancing lesions) and the other group including six patients with mild to moderate disability, relapses and inflammatory activity (median EDSS = 4.25, 1 relapse per year, 2 gadolinium-enhancing lesions). The median follow-up was 2.4 years. While the first group did not seem to benefit from aHSCT, an improvement in five out of six patients was observed in the second group. New T2 lesions occurred within the first 6 months but gadolinium-enhancing lesions were not observed (p < 0.05). A systematic literature search identified a higher efficacy of aHSCT in younger, less disabled MS patients with inflammatory activity, similar to the findings from Hamburg.
conclusionCohort reports describe aHSCT as a safe and efficient treatment option in highly inflammatory MS. Based on these data aHSCT seems to be a reasonable option in selected patients with highly inflammatory MS but a randomized controlled trial is warranted.
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.