↓ Skip to main content

Oral Disease-Modifying Treatments for Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis: A Likelihood to Achieve No Evidence of Disease Activity or Harm Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in CNS Drugs, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
Oral Disease-Modifying Treatments for Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis: A Likelihood to Achieve No Evidence of Disease Activity or Harm Analysis
Published in
CNS Drugs, August 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40263-018-0547-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dimitrios Papadopoulos, Dimos-Dimitrios D. Mitsikostas

Abstract

The likelihood to help or harm (LHH) is an absolute measure of the benefit versus risk profile of a medication, which can be used to assess the potential for benefit versus harm of different disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) for relapsing multiple sclerosis (R-MS) and facilitate clinical decision-making. The objective of this study was to assess absolute differences in benefit:risk ratios of oral DMTs for R-MS, using LHH analysis with no evidence of disease activity (NEDA) as beneficial outcome. The number needed to treat for a paient to achieve NEDA (NNTBNEDA) was used as an effect size metric of efficacy and the number needed to treat for a patient  to experience  an adverse event (NNTHAE), a serious adverse event (NNTHSAE), or treatment discontinuation due to an adverse event (NNTHAE-D) were used as measures of risk. The LHH-which is the ratio of NNTH:NNTB-values were calculated from published phase III trial data for oral DMTs. The values for likelihood to achieve NEDA than experience any AE ratio (LHH(AE/NEDA)) were 3.9, 6.8, 12.5 and 3.7, the likelihood to achieve NEDA than experience a SAE ratio (LHH(SAE/NEDA)) values were 3.5, 15, 23.5 and 2.8, and the likelihood to achieve NEDA versus discontinue treatment (LHH(AE-D/NEDA)) values were 20.3, 4.3, 3.9 and 3.1 for cladribine, dimethyl-fumarate, fingolimod, and teriflunomide, respectively. With all of the oral DMTs examined, R-MS patients are more likely to achieve NEDA than experience any adverse event.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 8 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 11 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 30%
Neuroscience 7 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 13%
Psychology 2 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 12 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 11 August 2018.
All research outputs
#6,195,828
of 23,098,660 outputs
Outputs from CNS Drugs
#573
of 1,318 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,987
of 331,041 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CNS Drugs
#16
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,098,660 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,318 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 331,041 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.