Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27549391›Full record

ReviewCurrent neurology and neuroscience reports2016

Diagnostic Criteria, Classification and Treatment Goals in Multiple Sclerosis: The Chronicles of Time and Space.

Achilles Ntranos, Fred Lublin

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current neurology and neuroscience reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Effectiveness of Ocrelizumab in Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis: a Multicenter, Retrospective, Real-world Study (OPPORTUNITY).Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2023
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Evolution of clinical trials in multiple sclerosis.Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2019
    Review
  15. Review
  16. 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

2 authors.

Achilles NtranosDepartment of Neurology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 1428 Madison Ave, New York, NY, 10029, USA. achilles.ntranos@gmail.com.
Fred LublinDepartment of Neurology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 1428 Madison Ave, New York, NY, 10029, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is one of the most diverse human diseases. Since its first description by Charcot in the nineteenth century, the diagnostic criteria, clinical course classification, and treatment goals for MS have been constantly revised and updated to improve diagnostic accuracy, physician communication, and clinical trial design. These changes have improved the clinical outcomes and quality of life for patients with the disease. Recent technological and research breakthroughs will almost certainly further change how we diagnose, classify, and treat MS in the future. In this review, we summarize the key events in the history of MS, explain the reasoning behind the current criteria for MS diagnosis, classification, and treatment, and provide suggestions for further improvements that will keep enhancing the clinical practice of MS.

Indexed as

Multiple SclerosisHumansClinical decision-makingEarly diagnosisHistoryMultiple sclerosisPatient careTherapeutics

Identifiers

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.