Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33335562›Full record

ReviewTherapeutic advances in neurological disorders2020

Factors influencing daily treatment choices in multiple sclerosis: practice guidelines, biomarkers and burden of disease.

Thomas Berger, Monika Adamczyk-Sowa, Tünde Csépány, Franz Fazekas, Tanja Hojs Fabjan, Dana Horáková, Alenka Horvat Ledinek, Zsolt Illes, Gisela Kobelt, Saša Šega Jazbec and 13 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

23 authors at 19 institutions in 8 countries.

Thomas BergerDepartment of Neurology, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, Vienna 1090, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5626-1144
Monika Adamczyk-SowaDepartment of Neurology, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Zabrze, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland.
Tünde CsépányDepartment of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary.
Franz FazekasDepartment of Neurology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Tanja Hojs FabjanDepartment of Neurology, University Medical Centre Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.
Dana HorákováDepartment of Neurology and Center of Clinical Neuroscience, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
Alenka Horvat LedinekDepartment of Neurology, University Clinical Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Zsolt IllesDepartment of Neurology, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Gisela KobeltEuropean Health Economics AB, Stockholm, Sweden.
Saša Šega JazbecDepartment of Neurology, University Clinical Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Eleonóra KlímováDepartment of Neurology, University of Prešov and Teaching Hospital of J. A. Reiman, Prešov, Slovakia.
Fritz LeutmezerDepartment of Neurology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Konrad RejdakDepartment of Neurology, Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland.
Csilla RozsaDepartment of Neurology, Jahn Ferenc Dél-pesti Hospital, Budapest, Hungary.
Johann SellnerDepartment of Neurology, Landesklinikum Mistelbach-Gänserndorf, Mistelbach, Austria, and Department of Neurology, Christian Doppler Medical Center, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria.
Krzysztof SelmajDepartment of Neurology, University of Warmia-Mazury, Olsztyn, Poland.
Pavel ŠtouracˇDepartment of Neurology, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
Jarmila SzilasiováDepartment of Neurology, P. J. Šafárik University Košice and University Hospital of L. Pasteur Košice, Slovakia.
Peter TurcˇániDepartment of Neurology, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia.
Marta VachováCentrum Teplice, Teplice, Czech Republic.
Manuela VaneckováDepartment of Radiology, MRI Unit, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
László VécseiDepartment of Neurology and MTA-SZTE Neuroscience Research Group, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
Eva Kubala HavrdováDepartment of Neurology and Center of Clinical Neuroscience, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
Charles University · CZLjubljana University Medical Centre · SIMedical University of Vienna · ATComenius University Bratislava · SKEuropean Centre for Disease Prevention and Control · SEJahn Ferenc Dél-Pesti Kórház és Rendelőintézet · HUMasaryk University · CZMedical University of Graz · ATMedical University of Lublin · PLMedical University of Silesia · PLParacelsus Medical University · ATRegional Museum in Teplice · CZUniversity Clinical Centre Maribor · SIUniversity of Debrecen · HUUniversity of Pavol Jozef Šafárik · SKUniversity of Prešov · SKUniversity of Southern Denmark · DKUniversity of Szeged · HUUniversity of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

At two meetings of a Central European board of multiple sclerosis (MS) experts in 2018 and 2019 factors influencing daily treatment choices in MS, especially practice guidelines, biomarkers and burden of disease, were discussed. The heterogeneity of MS and the complexity of the available treatment options call for informed treatment choices. However, evidence from clinical trials is generally lacking, particularly regarding sequencing, switches and escalation of drugs. Also, there is a need to identify patients who require highly efficacious treatment from the onset of their disease to prevent deterioration. The recently published European Committee for the Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis/European Academy of Neurology clinical practice guidelines on pharmacological management of MS cover aspects such as treatment efficacy, response criteria, strategies to address suboptimal response and safety concerns and are based on expert consensus statements. However, the recommendations constitute an excellent framework that should be adapted to local regulations, MS center capacities and infrastructure. Further, available and emerging biomarkers for treatment guidance were discussed. Magnetic resonance imaging parameters are deemed most reliable at present, even though complex assessment including clinical evaluation and laboratory parameters besides imaging is necessary in clinical routine. Neurofilament-light chain levels appear to represent the current most promising non-imaging biomarker. Other immunological data, including issues of immunosenescence, will play an increasingly important role for future treatment algorithms. Cognitive impairment has been recognized as a major contribution to MS disease burden. Regular evaluation of cognitive function is recommended in MS patients, although no specific disease-modifying treatment has been defined to date. Finally, systematic documentation of real-life data is recognized as a great opportunity to tackle unresolved daily routine challenges, such as use of sequential therapies, but requires joint efforts across clinics, governments and pharmaceutical companies.

Indexed as

biomarkersburden of diseasecognitive dysfunctionmagnetic resonance imagingmultiple sclerosisneurofilament

Identifiers

PMID33335562
PMCPMC7724259
OpenAlexW3112514380

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.