SynthesisPloS one2017
Oral versus intravenous methylprednisolone for the treatment of multiple sclerosis relapses: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dosing and Route of Steroid Induction Therapy in Non-Severe Autoimmune Hepatitis Do Not Affect Time to Biochemical Response.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Article
- Approach to Managing the Initial Presentation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Worldwide Practice Survey.Neurology. Clinical practice · 2025Article
- Induction of immune tolerance in NMOSD and MOGAD.Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2025Review
- How far should I manage acute optic neuritis as an ophthalmologist? A United Kingdom perspective.Eye (London, England) · 2024Review
- Article
- Intranasal Methylprednisolone Ameliorates Neuroinflammation Induced by Chronic Toluene Exposure.Pharmaceutics · 2022Article
- Update on the management of multiple sclerosis during the COVID-19 pandemic and post pandemic: An international consensus statement.Journal of neuroimmunology · 2021Review
- Consequences of Insurance Denials Among U.S. Patients Prescribed Repository Corticotropin Injection for Acute Exacerbations of Multiple Sclerosis.Neurology and therapy · 2021Article
- Safety and Effectiveness of Oral Methylprednisolone Therapy in Comparison With Intramuscular Adrenocorticotropic Hormone and Oral Prednisolone in Children With Infantile Spasms.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Article
- Treatment Effectiveness for Resolution of Multiple Sclerosis Relapse in a US Health Plan Population.Neurology and therapy · 2019Article
- The Application of Methylprednisolone Nanoscale Zirconium-Porphyrin Metal-Organic Framework (MPS-NPMOF) in the Treatment of Photoreceptor Degeneration.International journal of nanomedicine · 2019Article
- Horizontal Gaze Palsy and Ipsilateral Facial Nerve Palsy in Older Patient as Initial Manifestation of Very Late-Onset Multiple Sclerosis Successfully Treated with Oral Corticosteroids: A Case Report.Case reports in ophthalmologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntravenous glucocorticoids are recommended for multiple sclerosis (MS). However, they can be inconvenient and expensive. Due to their convenience and low cost, oral glucocorticoids may be an alternative treatment. Recently, several studies have shown that there is no difference in efficacy and safety between oral methylprednisolone (oMP) and intravenous methylprednisolone (ivMP).
objectivesWe sought to assess the clinical efficacy, safety and tolerability of oral methylprednisolone versus intravenous methylprednisolone for MS relapses in this meta-analysis.
methodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the clinical efficacy, safety and tolerability of oral methylprednisolone versus intravenous methylprednisolone for MS relapses were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Medline, EMBASE and China Biology Medicine until October 25, 2016, without language restrictions. The proportion of patients who had improved by day 28 was chosen as the efficacy outcome. We chose the risk ratio (RR) to analyze each trial with the 95% confidence interval (95% CI). We also used the fixed-effects model (Mantel-Haenszel approach) to calculate the pooled relative effect estimates.
resultsA total of 5 trials were identified, which included 369 patients. The results of our meta-analysis revealed that no significant difference existed in relapse improvement at day 28 between oMP and ivMP (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.10). No evidence of heterogeneity existed among the trials (P = 0.45, I2 = 0%). Both treatments were equally safe and well tolerated except that insomnia was more likely to occur in the oMP group compared to the ivMP group.
conclusionOur meta-analysis reveals strong evidence that oMP is not inferior to ivMP in increasing the proportion of patients experiencing clinical improvement at day 28. In addition, both routes of administration are equally well tolerated and safe. These findings suggest that we may be able to replace ivMP with oMP to treat MS relapses.
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.