↓ Skip to main content

Interferon in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 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 (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
127 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 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
Interferon in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2001
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rice, G P, Incorvaia, B, Munari, L, Ebers, G, Polman, C, D'Amico, R, Filippini, G, Rice, George PA, Incorvaia, Barbara, Munari, Luca M., Ebers, George, Polman, Chris, D'Amico, Roberto, Parmelli, Elena, Filippini, Graziella, 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 86 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 3%
Lecturer 1 1%
Unknown 83 95%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 2 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 2%
Unknown 83 95%

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 30 August 2018.
All research outputs
#1,254,634
of 12,211,623 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,014
of 8,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,133
of 272,828 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#94
of 223 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,211,623 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,269 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 272,828 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 223 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.