↓ Skip to main content

Aminopyridines for symptomatic treatment in multiple sclerosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2002
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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
patent
2 patents
wikipedia
7 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
140 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Aminopyridines for symptomatic treatment in multiple sclerosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2002
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001330
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alessandra Solari, Bernard MJ Uitdehaag, Giorgio Giuliani, Eugenio Pucci, Cristiana Taus

Abstract

The potassium channel blockers 4-aminopyridine (AP) and 3,4-diaminopyridine (DAP) increase nerve conduction in demyelinated nerve fibers, and have been proposed as a symptomatic therapy for people with multiple sclerosis (MS). To determine the efficacy and safety of aminopyridines for neurological deficits in MS people. We searched CENTRAL (Issue 2, 2002), MEDLINE (January 1966-July 2002), EMBASE (1974-July 2002), and the Cochrane MS Group's Specialised Register. We hand searched bibliographic references from retrieved studies and recent MS symposia reports, and contacted known studies' investigators. We included trials fulfilling all following criteria: randomised controlled trials (RCTs); adults with MS, out of exacerbation; AP or DAP treatment versus placebo; clinical endpoints. We identified 26 potentially pertinent studies. Three reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial quality from 17 full-paper studies. Six studies (eight publications, 198 participants, all crossover trials) were considered. Five studies assessed the efficacy of AP versus placebo, one compared DAP with active placebo. Treatment duration ranged from hours to six months. Median quality score of the studies was 3. Heterogeneity of outcome assessment and absence of information on individual study periods allowed quantitative pooling of results for few categorical variables. Of the 198 treated patients, there were six major side effects: one acute encephalopathy, three episodes of confusion, and two seizures. Three studies (54 patients) assessed manual muscle testing, with 29 patients (54%) improving in at least one muscular district during study treatment versus four patients (7%) during placebo (odds ratio [OR] 14.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.7-43.7). Nine out of 54 participants (17%) improved in ambulation during study treatment versus none during placebo (p<0.001). A lower EDSS score was found in 13/198 participants during study treatment (7%) versus none during placebo (p<0.001). No improvement in neuropsychological tests was found in three trials assessing cognitive function. Finally, 47/136 MS people (35%) felt better when receiving the study drug, against 7(5%) on placebo (OR 9.7, 95% CI 4.3-22.0). Currently available information allows no unbiased statement about safety or efficacy of aminopyridines for treating MS symptoms. Furthermore, we could not obtain any data on three unpublished RCTs (more than 300 participants). We conclude that publication bias remains a pervasive problem in this area, and that until the results of these unpublished studies are available to the scientific community, no confident estimate of effectiveness of aminopyridines in the management of MS symptoms is possible.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 136 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 11%
Student > Master 15 11%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 9%
Other 11 8%
Other 33 24%
Unknown 38 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 4%
Psychology 5 4%
Other 24 17%
Unknown 46 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 March 2019.
All research outputs
#3,116,569
of 22,786,087 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,799
of 12,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,337
of 48,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,786,087 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 48,235 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.