Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28492970›Full record

SynthesisJournal of neurology2017

Oral and intravenous steroids for multiple sclerosis relapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Simona Lattanzi, Claudia Cagnetti, Maura Danni, Leandro Provinciali, Mauro Silvestrini

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of neurology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Simona LattanziDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Neurological Clinic, Marche Polytechnic University, Via Conca 71, 60020, Ancona, Italy. alfierelattanzisimona@gmail.com.
Claudia CagnettiDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Neurological Clinic, Marche Polytechnic University, Via Conca 71, 60020, Ancona, Italy.
Maura DanniDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Neurological Clinic, Marche Polytechnic University, Via Conca 71, 60020, Ancona, Italy.
Leandro ProvincialiDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Neurological Clinic, Marche Polytechnic University, Via Conca 71, 60020, Ancona, Italy.
Mauro SilvestriniDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Neurological Clinic, Marche Polytechnic University, Via Conca 71, 60020, Ancona, Italy.
Marche Polytechnic University · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Glucocorticoids are the standard of care for multiple sclerosis (MS) relapses, but the most desirable route of administration is still matter of debate. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of oral versus intravenous steroids for treatment of acute relapses in patients with MS. Randomized or quasi-randomized, parallel group trials with direct comparison between oral and intravenous steroid treatment in MS patients with acute relapse were identified through a systematic literature search. Six trials were included involving 419 participants, 210 for oral, and 209 for intravenous groups, respectively. The weighted mean differences (WMDs) in the Kurtzke's Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score reduction between the oral and intravenous groups were 0.32 [(-0.09 to 0.73); p = 0.129] and 0.11 [(-0.12 to 0.33); p = 0.355] at 1 and 4 weeks after treatment, respectively. The risk ratios (RRs) for improvement by at least one EDSS point were 0.79 [(0.37-1.68); p = 0.539] at week 1 and 0.92 (0.76-1.12); p = 0.400] at week 4. There were no differences in the relapse rate and relapse freedom at 6 months between groups. The WMDs in the mean percentage reduction of Gadolinium-enhancing lesions between oral and intravenous arms were 0.14 (-0.02, 0.29); p = 0.083] and 0.04 (-0.19, 0.28); p = 0.705] at 1 and 4 weeks from treatment. Among the adverse events, insomnia was significantly associated with the oral route of steroid administration [RR 1.25 (1.07-1.46); p = 0.005]. In adult patients with acute MS relapse, there were no clear-cut differences in the efficacy and overall tolerability between oral and intravenous steroids.

Indexed as

Administration, IntravenousAdministration, OralGlucocorticoidsHumansImmunologic FactorsMultiple SclerosisRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSteroidsGlucocorticoidsImmunologic FactorsSteroidsAcute relapseGlucocorticoidsMultiple sclerosisSteroids

Identifiers

PMID28492970
OpenAlexW2612559753

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.