Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36816812›Full record

ArticleMultiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinical

Proportion and characteristics of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis in five European registries using objective classifiers.

Lars Forsberg, Tim Spelman, Pernilla Klyve, Ali Manouchehrinia, Ryan Ramanujam, Elena Mouresan, Jiri Drahota, Dana Horakova, Hanna Joensen, Luigi Pontieri and 20 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Multiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinical. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Disease course after pregnancy in women with progressive multiple sclerosis symptoms.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2025
    Observational
  5. Predictors of risk of secondary progression in multiple sclerosis.Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

30 authors.

Lars ForsbergDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3536-1813
Tim SpelmanDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Pernilla KlyveDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ali ManouchehriniaDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4857-5762
Ryan RamanujamDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7360-1497
Elena MouresanDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Jiri DrahotaCzech National Multiple Sclerosis ReMuS, IMPULS Endowment Fund, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3416-2094
Dana HorakovaFirst Faculty of Medicine and General University Hospital, Department of Neurology and Center of Clinical Neuroscience, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1915-0036
Hanna JoensenThe Danish Multiple Sclerosis Registry, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Luigi PontieriThe Danish Multiple Sclerosis Registry, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1506-3827
Melinda MagyariThe Danish Multiple Sclerosis Registry, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
David EllenbergerMS Forschungs- und Projektentwicklungs-gGmbH, Hannover, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2274-5025
Alexander StahmannMS Forschungs- und Projektentwicklungs-gGmbH, Hannover, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5308-105X
Jeff RodgersSwansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0757-3664
James WittsSwansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK.
Rod MiddletonSwansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK.
Richard NicholasSwansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0414-1225
Vladimir BezlyakNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Nicholas AdlardNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Thomas HachNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Carol LinesNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Sandra VukusicHôpital Neurologique, Service de Neurologie A, the European Database for Multiple Sclerosis (EDMUS), Coordinating Center and INSERM U 433, Lyon, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7337-7122
Merja Soilu-HänninenDivision of Clinical Neurosciences, University Hospital and University of Turku, Turku, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6930-0229
Anneke van der WaltDepartment of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4278-7003
Helmut ButzkuevenDepartment of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Pietro IaffaldanoDepartment of Basic Medical Sciences, Neurosciences and Sense Organs, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Bari, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2308-1731
Maria TrojanoDepartment of Basic Medical Sciences, Neurosciences and Sense Organs, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Bari, Italy.
Anna GlaserDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Jan HillertDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7386-6732
SPMS Research Collaboration Network

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: To assign a course of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) (SPMS) may be difficult and the proportion of persons with SPMS varies between reports. An objective method for disease course classification may give a better estimation of the relative proportions of relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) and SPMS and may identify situations where SPMS is under reported. Materials and methods: Data were obtained for 61,900 MS patients from MS registries in the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (UK), including date of birth, sex, SP conversion year, visits with an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, MS onset and diagnosis date, relapses, and disease-modifying treatment (DMT) use. We included RRMS or SPMS patients with at least one visit between January 2017 and December 2019 if ≥ 18 years of age. We applied three objective methods: A set of SPMS clinical trial inclusion criteria ("EXPAND criteria") modified for a real-world evidence setting, a modified version of the MSBase algorithm, and a decision tree-based algorithm recently published. Results: The clinically assigned proportion of SPMS varied from 8.7% (Czechia) to 34.3% (UK). Objective classifiers estimated the proportion of SPMS from 15.1% (Germany by the EXPAND criteria) to 58.0% (UK by the decision tree method). Due to different requirements of number of EDSS scores, classifiers varied in the proportion they were able to classify; from 18% (UK by the MSBase algorithm) to 100% (the decision tree algorithm for all registries). Objectively classified SPMS patients were older, converted to SPMS later, had higher EDSS at index date and higher EDSS at conversion. More objectively classified SPMS were on DMTs compared to the clinically assigned. Conclusion: SPMS appears to be systematically underdiagnosed in MS registries. Reclassified patients were more commonly on DMTs.

Indexed as

disease coursedisease-modifying treatmentsMultiple sclerosisprogressionSPMS

Identifiers

PMID36816812
PMCPMC9936396

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.