Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28451391›Full record

ArticleBiomedical reports2017

Follow-up of multiple sclerosis patients treated with Endotherapia (GEMSP).

Michel Geffard, Arturo Mangas, Rafael Coveñas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomedical reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Michel GeffardInstitut pour le Développement de la Recherche en Pathologie Humaine et Thérapeutique, 33400 Talence, France.
Arturo MangasGemacbio, Research Department, Lieu dit Berganton, 33127 Saint Jean d'Illac, France.
Rafael CoveñasInstitute of Neurosciences of Castilla y León, Laboratory of Neuroanatomy of the Peptidergic Systems, University of Salamanca, 37007 Salamanca, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Endotherapia (GEMSP) is a novel therapeutic approach for multiple sclerosis (MS). The aim of the present study was to demonstrate the efficiency of Endotherapia in the follow-up of 193 patients with MS. The efficiency coefficient that was evaluated was the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, which is a functional scale of MS progression. The evaluated score of each patient during follow-up visits was compared with the theoretical score of the disease progression without GEMSP. The evolution of the EDSS score was evaluated according to the inclusion score. The quantitative global study of the EDSS score highlighted a statistically significant difference between the final average scores of the treatment with GEMSP (M) and worldwide reference (R) groups. The improvement of the M group compared with the R group was 24.5%. According to the final EDSS scores, the study highlighted a difference in favor of the M group with 62.0% for scores ≤3, 7.8% for scores between 3 and 6 and 19.6% for scores ≥6. According to the qualitative evolution of the EDSS scores, the improvements in favor of group M were 49.3% for scores ≤3, 79.1% for scores between 3 and 6 and 19.5% for scores ≥6. The qualitative study of the EDSS score showed a statistically significant success percentage; the success percentages were between 59.1 and 90.0%. In a larger population of MS patients, the data confirm the beneficial effects of GEMSP that were previously reported in pre-clinical and clinical studies. In addition, 78% of patients showed an improvement or deceleration of the disease.

Indexed as

endotherapiaExpanded Disability Status Scale scoreGEMSPmultiple sclerosispoly-L-lysine

Identifiers

PMID28451391
PMCPMC5403692

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.