↓ Skip to main content

Laquinimod efficacy in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: how to understand why and if studies disagree

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Neurology, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
Laquinimod efficacy in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: how to understand why and if studies disagree
Published in
BMC Neurology, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12883-016-0702-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gary R. Cutter, Volker Knappertz, Nissim Sasson, David Ladkani

Abstract

The results of two randomized phase 3 trials that investigated the use of laquinimod in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis were analyzed using a propensity score model. The propensity score in each study was defined as the probability of an individual patient being assigned to either the laquinimod or placebo study arm. The analysis included two main stages: (1) calculation of a propensity score for each patient, given a broad set of baseline covariates that included second-degree interactions, and (2) incorporation of the propensity score as another covariate into the predefined primary analysis model to test the treatment effect of laquinimod (0.6 mg/d) vs placebo on the annualized relapse rate (ARR). The BRAVO study showed baseline imbalances for T2 volume and the proportion of patients with gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing lesions, both parameters known to correlate with risk of relapse. Adjustment using the propensity score as a categorical variable showed that the estimated difference in ARR between laquinimod and placebo was 0.078, in favor of laquinimod. In ALLEGRO, the baseline Gd-enhancing lesion mean score was higher for placebo vs laquinimod. When the primary analysis model was adjusted for the propensity score as a categorical variable, the covariate adjusted difference in mean ARR between laquinimod and placebo was 0.084, in favor of laquinimod. Propensity scores addressing differences in baseline characteristics may be helpful to better understand whether observed treatment effect differences in randomized controlled trials are accurate results or result from inherent differences between patients with multiple sclerosis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 16%
Student > Bachelor 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Other 7 22%
Unknown 8 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 25%
Neuroscience 4 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Unspecified 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 11 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 December 2016.
All research outputs
#2,779,620
of 23,308,124 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neurology
#290
of 2,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,982
of 322,147 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neurology
#7
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,308,124 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,487 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 322,147 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.