Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42267802›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of neurology2026

Defining Activity-Based Subgroups in Multiple Sclerosis: A Review and Framework Proposal.

Catalina Lopez Manzano, Claire M Rice, Emma Tallantyre, Chris Cooper, Hanyu Wang, Eve Tomlinson, Ayman Sadek, Ananya Rao-Middleton, Howard Thom, Penny Whiting

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Catalina Lopez ManzanoBristol Technology Assessment Group (TAG), Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-8883-0167
Claire M RiceSchool of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9851-4426
Emma TallantyreDivision of Psychological Medicine and Clinical Neurosciences, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Chris CooperBristol Technology Assessment Group (TAG), Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8976-1783
Hanyu WangBristol Technology Assessment Group (TAG), Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Eve TomlinsonBristol Technology Assessment Group (TAG), Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Ayman SadekBristol Technology Assessment Group (TAG), Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Ananya Rao-MiddletonPatient Representative, Bristol, UK.
Howard ThomBristol Technology Assessment Group (TAG), Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Penny WhitingBristol Technology Assessment Group (TAG), Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1138-5682

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research 165943
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultiple sclerosis (MS) is commonly stratified into activity-based subgroups to inform treatment decisions and health technology assessments (HTAs). However, the terminology and criteria used to define these subgroups, particularly 'active', 'highly active' and 'rapidly evolving severe' (RES) disease, are inconsistent across clinical trials and regulatory guidance, leading to ambiguity in practice and restricted treatment access. Our objectives were to review how activity-based subgroups in MS are defined across NICE technology appraisals (TAs) and the randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that inform them, and to propose a preliminary framework for standardised terminology.

methodsWe identified and reviewed NICE TAs of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for MS and the RCTs included in those appraisals. We extracted and compared definitions used to characterise activity-based MS subgroups, and classified them by key components such as relapse history, MRI findings and treatment status. We summarised our findings and highlighted points of consensus and controversy.

resultsDefinitions varied widely, especially for 'highly active' RRMS and active SPMS. While most TAs used consistent criteria for 'active' and 'RES' RRMS disease, definitions in RCTs were heterogeneous. We identified frequent overlaps in terminology and proposed a simplified framework comprising three distinct but overlapping subgroups for RMS: active RRMS/RRMS, highly active RRMS (HARRMS) and rapidly evolving severe RRMS (RES-RRMS).

conclusionsStandardised definitions are urgently needed to improve evidence synthesis, inform regulatory guidance and ensure equitable treatment access. We propose a formal consensus process to consolidate this framework for use in future research, HTAs and treatment pathways.

Indexed as

Multiple SclerosisTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicclinical trialsevidence synthesismultiple sclerosisrelapsing–remittingreview

Identifiers

PMID42267802
PMCPMC13251442

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.