ArticleBMC medical research methodology2022
Impact of methodological choices in comparative effectiveness studies: application in natalizumab versus fingolimod comparison among patients with multiple sclerosis.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Therapeutic Outcomes of Fingolimod and Interferon Beta-1a in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: A Real-World Study from Jordan.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Big multiple sclerosis data network: novel modelling approaches for real-world data analysis.Journal of neurology · 2025Review
- Treatment De-escalation in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: An Observational Study.CNS drugs · 2025Observational
- Comparative efficacy of ofatumumabTherapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2024Article
- Five-year efficacy outcomes of ocrelizumab in relapsing multiple sclerosis: A propensity-matched comparison of the OPERA studies with other disease-modifying therapies in real-world lines of treatments.Journal of central nervous system disease · 2024Article
- Observational studies of treatment effectiveness in neurology.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
88 authors at 20 institutions in 14 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNatalizumab and fingolimod are used as high-efficacy treatments in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Several observational studies comparing these two drugs have shown variable results, using different methods to control treatment indication bias and manage censoring. The objective of this empirical study was to elucidate the impact of methods of causal inference on the results of comparative effectiveness studies.
methodsData from three observational multiple sclerosis registries (MSBase, the Danish MS Registry and French OFSEP registry) were combined. Four clinical outcomes were studied. Propensity scores were used to match or weigh the compared groups, allowing for estimating average treatment effect for treated or average treatment effect for the entire population. Analyses were conducted both in intention-to-treat and per-protocol frameworks. The impact of the positivity assumption was also assessed.
resultsOverall, 5,148 relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis patients were included. In this well-powered sample, the 95% confidence intervals of the estimates overlapped widely. Propensity scores weighting and propensity scores matching procedures led to consistent results. Some differences were observed between average treatment effect for the entire population and average treatment effect for treated estimates. Intention-to-treat analyses were more conservative than per-protocol analyses. The most pronounced irregularities in outcomes and propensity scores were introduced by violation of the positivity assumption.
conclusionsThis applied study elucidates the influence of methodological decisions on the results of comparative effectiveness studies of treatments for multiple sclerosis. According to our results, there are no material differences between conclusions obtained with propensity scores matching or propensity scores weighting given that a study is sufficiently powered, models are correctly specified and positivity assumption is fulfilled.
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.