Trial reportPloS one2017
Income in Multiple Sclerosis Patients with Different Disease Phenotypes.
Trial report in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adult-Onset Leukoencephalopathy With Axonal Spheroids and Pigmented Glia: Review of Clinical Manifestations as Foundations for Therapeutic Development.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Review
- Cognitive function predicts work disability among multiple sclerosis patients.Multiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinicalArticle
- Importance of early treatment decisions on future income of multiple sclerosis patients.Multiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinicalArticle
- Comparison of employment among people with Multiple Sclerosis across Europe.Multiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinicalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultiple sclerosis (MS) is a disease with profound heterogeneity in clinical course.
objectiveTo analyze sources and levels of income among MS patients in relation to disease phenotype with a special focus on identifying differences/similarities between primary progressive MS (PPMS) and secondary progressive MS (SPMS).
methodsA total of 6890 MS patients aged 21-64 years and living in Sweden in 2010 were identified for this cross-sectional study. Descriptive statistics, logistic, truncated linear, and zero-inflated negative binomial regression models were used to estimate differences in income between SPMS, PPMS and relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) patients.
resultsRRMS patients earned almost twice as much as PPMS and SPMS patients (on average SEK 204,500, SEK 114,500, and SEK 79,800 in 2010, respectively). The difference in earnings between PPMS and SPMS was not statistically significant when analyzed with multivariable regression. The estimated odds ratio for PPMS patients to have income from earnings was not significantly different from SPMS patients (95% CI 0.98 to 1.59). PPMS and RRMS patients were less likely to receive benefits when compared to SPMS patients (by 6% and 27% lower, respectively).
conclusionOur findings argue for similarities between PPMS and SPMS and highlight the socioeconomic importance of preventing RRMS patients convert to SPMS.
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.