↓ Skip to main content

Corticosteroids or ACTH for acute exacerbations in multiple sclerosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2000
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
145 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
144 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
Corticosteroids or ACTH for acute exacerbations in multiple sclerosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2000
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001331
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antonietta Citterio, Loredana La Mantia, Gabriele Ciucci, Livia Candelise, Fabio Brusaferri, Rune Midgard, Graziella Filippini

Abstract

Corticosteroids are often used to improve the rate of recovery from acute exacerbation in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. However, it is still unclear just how relatively effective these agents are and the type of drug, optimal dose, frequency, duration of treatment and route of administration are unknown. The object of this review was to determine the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids or ACTH in reducing the short and long term morbidity from MS. Moreover, we wished to examine from indirect comparisons if the effect of corticosteroids is different according to different doses and drugs, routes of administration, length of treatment. A search strategy developed for the Cochrane MS Group (last searched: June 1999) completed with handsearching and personal contacts with trialists and pharmaceutical companies was used. All randomised, double-blind, unconfounded trials comparing corticosteroids or ACTH to placebo in patients with MS, treated for acute exacerbations, without any age or severity restrictions, were evaluated. Two reviewers independently selected articles for inclusion, assessed trials' quality and extracted the data. A third reviewer cross-checked them and disagreements were resolved by a joint discussion. Six trials contributed to this review; a total of 377 participants (199 treatment, 178 placebo) were randomised. The drugs analysed were methylprednisolone (MP) (four trials, 140 patients) and ACTH (two trials, 237 patients). Overall, MP or ACTH showed a protective effect against the disease getting worse or stable within the first five weeks of treatment (odds ratio[OR]=0.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24-0.57) with some but non significant greater effect for MP and intravenous administration. Short (five days) or long (15 days) duration of treatment with MP did not show any significant difference. Only one study (with 51 patients) reported data after one year of follow-up: no difference between oral MP and placebo in the prevention of new exacerbations or improvement in long term disability was detected. No data are available beyond one year of follow-up to indicate whether steroids or ACTH have any effect on long-term progression. One study reported that a short term treatment with high dose intravenous MP was not attended by adverse events. On the contrary, gastrointestinal symptoms and psychic disorders were significantly more common in the oral, high-dose MP than in the placebo group. Weight gain and edema were significantly more frequent in the ACTH group than in controls. We found evidence favouring the corticosteroid MP for acute exacerbation in MS patients. Data are insufficient to reliably estimate effect of corticosteroids on prevention of new exacerbations and reduction of long-term disability. Studies assessing long term risk/benefit and adverse effects of corticosteroids in MS patients are urgently needed.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Spain 2 1%
Ecuador 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 136 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 16%
Researcher 21 15%
Student > Master 18 13%
Student > Bachelor 15 10%
Other 14 10%
Other 31 22%
Unknown 22 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 40%
Neuroscience 10 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 7%
Psychology 7 5%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Other 24 17%
Unknown 28 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 06 February 2020.
All research outputs
#4,896,412
of 15,582,745 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,652
of 11,222 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,569
of 289,548 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#182
of 245 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,582,745 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,222 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.2. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 289,548 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 245 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.