Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27252597›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of MS care

Critical Appraisal of Evidence for Improving Gait Speed in People with Multiple Sclerosis: Dalfampridine Versus Gait Training.

Prudence Plummer

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of MS care. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. International journal of MS care
    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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Prudence PlummerDivision of Physical Therapy, Department of Allied Health Sciences, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch has not yet compared the treatment effects of dalfampridine with traditional rehabilitation of gait impairments in multiple sclerosis (MS). The purpose of this review was to critically appraise the evidence for dalfampridine and gait training for increasing gait speed in people with MS.

methodsA systematic search of the research literature was conducted. Consideration was given to only randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. For selection of gait training studies, only studies involving task-specific gait training interventions and measuring treatment effects on gait speed were considered.

resultsTreatment effects on gait speed were extracted from four studies examining the efficacy of dalfampridine and six gait training RCTs. Overall mean increase in gait speed with dalfampridine was 0.07 m/s (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04-0.09 m/s) compared to 0.06 m/s (95% CI, 0.02-0.10 m/s) for gait training. Among dalfampridine responders (38% of participants in RCTs), the mean increase in gait speed was 0.16 m/s (95% CI, 0.13-0.18 m/s). Mean increases for individual gait training interventions ranged from 0.01 to 0.39 m/s; however, CIs were wide due to small sample sizes.

conclusionsCurrent evidence is insufficient to conclude whether dalfampridine or gait training is superior for improving gait speed in people with MS. These findings should be viewed cautiously due to differences in study populations and small sample sizes in gait training studies. Both treatment approaches provide only short-lived improvements. Head-to-head comparison trials and studies combining both treatment modalities are needed.

Identifiers

PMID27252597
PMCPMC4886996
OpenAlexW2191045040

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.