SynthesisPloS one2015
Evaluation of Study and Patient Characteristics of Clinical Studies in Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Disease activity in primary progressive multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Pooled it
- Best supportive care for patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS) in Germany prior to ocrelizumab treatment: Final results from the RETRO PPMS study.Journal of central nervous system disease · 2024Article
- Brain region volumes and their relationship with disability progression and cognitive function in primary progressive multiple sclerosis.Brain and behavior · 2021Article
- Deciphering Multiple Sclerosis Progression.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Review
- Disease-Modifying Drug Uptake and Health Service Use in the Ageing MS Population.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Article
- MRI quality control for the Italian Neuroimaging Network Initiative: moving towards big data in multiple sclerosis.Journal of neurology · 2019Article
- Interferon β-Mediated Protective Functions of Microglia in Central Nervous System Autoimmunity.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Review
- Article
- Comparative utility of disability progression measures in PPMS: Analysis of the PROMiSe data set.Neurology(R) neuroimmunology & neuroinflammation · 2017Article
- Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis: Putting Together the Puzzle.Frontiers in neurology · 2017Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSo far, clinical studies in primary progressive MS (PPMS) have failed to meet their primary efficacy endpoints. To some extent this might be attributable to the choice of assessments or to the selection of the study population.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to identify outcome influencing factors by analyzing the design and methods of previous randomized studies in PPMS patients without restriction to intervention or comparator.
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS and the COCHRANE Central Register of Controlled Trials (inception to February 2015). Keywords included PPMS, primary progressive multiple sclerosis and chronic progressive multiple sclerosis. Randomized, controlled trials of at least one year's duration were selected if they included only patients with PPMS or if they reported sufficient PPMS subgroup data. No restrictions with respect to intervention or comparator were applied. Study quality was assessed by a biometrics expert. Relevant baseline characteristics and outcomes were extracted and compared.
resultsOf 52 PPMS studies identified, four were selected. Inclusion criteria were notably different among studies with respect to both the definition of PPMS and the requirements for the presence of disability progression at enrolment. Differences between the study populations included the baseline lesion load, pretreatment status and disease duration. The rate of disease progression may also be an important factor, as all but one of the studies included a large proportion of patients with a low progression rate. In addition, the endpoints specified could not detect progression adequately.
conclusionOptimal PPMS study methods involve appropriate patient selection, especially regarding the PPMS phenotype and progression rate. Functional composite endpoints might be more sensitive than single endpoints in capturing progression.
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.