Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28480798›Full record

ReviewMultiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England)2017

A new role for evoked potentials in MS? Repurposing evoked potentials as biomarkers for clinical trials in MS.

Martin Hardmeier, Letizia Leocani, Peter Fuhr

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing 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

37 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Current and Future Biomarkers in Multiple Sclerosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Martin HardmeierSection of Clinical Neurophysiology, Department of Neurology, University Hospital of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Letizia LeocaniNeurological Department and Institute of Experimental Neurology (INSPE) Scientific Institute, University Hospital San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Peter FuhrSection of Clinical Neurophysiology, Department of Neurology, University Hospital of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evoked potentials (EP) characterize signal conduction in selected tracts of the central nervous system in a quantifiable way. Since alteration of signal conduction is the main mechanism of symptoms and signs in multiple sclerosis (MS), multimodal EP may serve as a representative measure of the functional impairment in MS. Moreover, EP have been shown to be predictive for disease course, and thus might help to select patient groups at high risk of progression for clinical trials. EP can detect deterioration, as well as improvement of impulse propagation, independently from the mechanism causing the change. Therefore, they are candidates for biomarkers with application in clinical phase-II trials. Applicability of EP in multicenter trials has been limited by different standards of registration and assessment.

Indexed as

BiomarkersEvoked PotentialsHumansMultiple SclerosisBiomarkersbiomarkerelectrophysiologyEvoked potentialsmotor evoked potentialsmultimodal evoked potentialsphase-II trialsremyelinationsomatosensory evoked potentialsvisual evoked potentials

Identifiers

PMID28480798
PMCPMC5564950

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.