ArticleNeurological research and practice2024
Prognostic models in multiple sclerosis: progress and challenges in clinical integration.
Article in Neurological research and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of the RoAD Score as a Predictor of Long-Term Irreversible Ambulatory Disability in Multiple Sclerosis: Evidence from a Real-World Cohort.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- The clinical relevance of hyper-reflective foci in the inner retina at the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis.Neurological research and practice · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
As a chronic inflammatory disease of the central nervous system, multiple sclerosis (MS) is of great individual health and socio-economic significance. To date, there is no prognostic model that is used in routine clinical care to predict the very heterogeneous course of the disease. Despite several research groups working on different prognostic models using traditional statistics, machine learning and/or artificial intelligence approaches, the use of published models in clinical decision making is limited because of poor model performance, lack of transferability and/or lack of validated models. To provide a systematic overview, we conducted a "Cochrane review" that assessed 75 published prediction models using relevant checklists (CHARMS, PROBAST, TRIPOD). We have summarized the relevant points from this analysis here so that the use of prognostic models for therapy decisions in clinical routine can be successful in the future.
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.