Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34336283›Full record

ArticleNeurology research international2021

Comparable Efficacy and Safety of Teriflunomide versus Dimethyl Fumarate for the Treatment of Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis.

Nasim Nehzat, Omid Mirmosayyeb, Mahdi Barzegar, Reza Vosoughi, Erfane Fazeli, Vahid Shaygannejad

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurology research international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Dimethyl Fumarate or Teriflunomide for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: A Meta-analysis of Post-marketing Studies.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Nasim NehzatIsfahan Neurosciences Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1265-1663
Omid MirmosayyebIsfahan Neurosciences Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3756-2985
Mahdi BarzegarIsfahan Neurosciences Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6578-0250
Reza VosoughiUniversity of Toronto, St. Michael's Hospital Multiple Sclerosis Clinic, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2337-1088
Erfane FazeliIsfahan Neurosciences Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2192-0984
Vahid ShaygannejadIsfahan Neurosciences Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9732-4153
Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · IRSt. Michael's Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this observational study is to investigate the efficacy and safety of two approved oral disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in patients with remitting-relapsing multiple sclerosis (RRMS): dimethyl fumarate (DMF) vs. teriflunomide (TRF).

methodsA total of 159 RRMS patients (82 on TRF and 77 on DMF) were included. The expanded disability status scale (EDSS), confirmed disability improvement (CDI), confirmed disability progression (CDP), and annualized relapse rate (ARR) were evaluated for the two-year period prior to enrollment in our study. The drug-associated adverse effects (AEs) were recorded. We conducted propensity matching score to compare the efficacy between TRF and DMF.

resultsAfter matching for the confounders, TRF- and DMF-treated groups were not different in terms of EDSS (

conclusionBased on our findings, DMF is as efficacious and safe as TRF for the treatment of RRMS in our Iranian study population. Multicentric studies need to corroborate these findings in other populations.

Identifiers

PMID34336283
PMCPMC8298169
OpenAlexW3185679471

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.