ReviewEuropean journal of neurology2026
Defining Activity-Based Subgroups in Multiple Sclerosis: A Review and Framework Proposal.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
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
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.