↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interferon in relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2001
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 (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
7 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
138 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
138 Mendeley
Title
Interferon in relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2001
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002002
Pubmed ID
Authors

George PA Rice, Barbara Incorvaia, Luca M. Munari, George Ebers, Chris Polman, Roberto D'Amico, Elena Parmelli, Graziella Filippini

Abstract

Recombinant interferons have been shown to suppress both the clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measures of disease activity in patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). We performed a Cochrane review of all randomised, placebo-controlled trials of recombinant interferons in RRMS. Of 208 articles identified by a predefined search strategy, seven of these, reporting randomised trials, met all the selection criteria and form the subject of this review. The trials selected were double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trials of RRMS patients who were treated with recombinant interferon, given by the subcutaneous or the intramuscular route. The quality of the trials was variable, with substantial methodological inadequacies in allocation concealment, high proportion and incomplete description of dropouts and failure to adhere to the principles of intention to treat analysis. The baseline characteristics were largely comparable between treatment and placebo groups. Because of prominent treatment-associated side effects, which could be easily identified by patients, these trials could be considered as single blind rather than double-blind. Although 1215 patients were included in this review, only 919 (76%) contributed to the results concerning exacerbations and progression of the disease at two years. Specifically interferon significantly reduced the occurrence of exacerbations (RR =0.80, 95% CI [0.73,0.88], p<0.001) and progression of the disease (RR =0.69, 95% CI [0.55,0.87], p= 0.002) two years after randomisation. However, the correct assignment of dropouts was essential to the demonstration of efficacy, most conspicuously concerning the effect of the drug on disease progression. If interferon-treated patients who dropped out were deemed to have progressed (worst case scenario) the significance of these effects was lost (RR = 1.31, CI [0.60,2.89], p = 0.5). The evolution in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology in the decade in which these trials were performed and different reporting of data among trials made it impossible to perform a quantitative analysis of the MRI results. Both clinical and laboratory side effects reported in the trials were more frequent in treated patients than in controls. No information was available regarding side effects and adverse events after two years of follow-up. The impact of interferon treatment (and its side effects) on the quality of life of patients was not reported in any trial included in this review. The efficacy of interferon on exacerbations and disease progression in patients with relapsing remitting MS was modest after one and two years of treatment. It was not possible to conduct a quantitative analysis beyond two years. Longer follow-up and more uniform reporting of clinical and MRI outcomes among these trials might have allowed for a more convincing conclusion.

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 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 <1%
Sri Lanka 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 133 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 16%
Student > Bachelor 22 16%
Researcher 19 14%
Student > Postgraduate 11 8%
Other 26 19%
Unknown 15 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 6%
Psychology 8 6%
Neuroscience 7 5%
Other 19 14%
Unknown 27 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 22 January 2021.
All research outputs
#2,277,299
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,696
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,025
of 45,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 45,762 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 95% 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 75% of its contemporaries.