ArticleBrain and behavior2016
A multi-biomarker follow-up study of patients with multiple sclerosis.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Iron homeostasis, complement, and coagulation cascade as CSF signature of cortical lesions in early multiple sclerosis.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2019Article
- Subsets of activated monocytes and markers of inflammation in incipient and progressed multiple sclerosis.Immunology and cell biology · 2018Article
- A multi-biomarker follow-up study of patients with multiple sclerosis.Brain and behavior · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to examine the levels of the macrophage marker sCD163 and other biomarkers at the time of diagnosis of patients with either clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) or relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), and assess relation to clinical indicators of prognosis, disease activity (DA), and changes in the levels of these biomarkers at follow-up. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe clinical status and MRI were reevaluated in 56 patients more than 1 year after diagnosis with a median follow-up time of 2 years. Levels of biomarkers in serum and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples were evaluated by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays.
resultsThere was no significant difference in time to DA between patients with CIS and RRMS. A high sCD163 ratio (>0.07) was significantly (
conclusionsThe levels of all biomarkers changed concurrently with MS treatment. The sCD163 ratio was identified as a potential novel marker for time to DA.
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.