↓ 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 (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
patent
2 patents
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 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.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 91 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Other 9 9%
Student > Master 9 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Other 23 24%
Unknown 25 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 34 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 17 May 2018.
All research outputs
#2,228,659
of 12,959,714 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,023
of 10,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,409
of 275,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#126
of 239 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,959,714 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,419 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 275,252 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 239 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.