ArticleBiomedical reports2017
Follow-up of multiple sclerosis patients treated with Endotherapia (GEMSP).
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Editorial: New drugs, approaches and strategies for multiple sclerosis treatment.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.