Evidence mapPaperPMID 33467978Full record

Trial reportMultiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England)2021

Effect of applying inclusion and exclusion criteria of phase III clinical trials to multiple sclerosis patients in routine clinical care.

Kris Oliver Jalusic, David Ellenberger, Paulus Rommer, Alexander Stahmann, Uwe Zettl, Klaus Berger

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase III
In one paragraph

Trial report in Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. The relative risk of infection in people with multiple sclerosis using disease-modifying treatment: a systematic review of observational studies.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Kris Oliver JalusicInstitute of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7715-089X
David EllenbergerMS Forschungs- und Projektentwicklungs-gGmbH, German MS Register, Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2274-5025
Paulus RommerDepartment of Neurology, University Medicine Rostock, Rostock, Germany/Department of Neurology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-5209-6647
Alexander StahmannMS Forschungs- und Projektentwicklungs-gGmbH, German MS Register, Hannover, Germany.
Uwe ZettlDepartment of Neurology, University Medicine Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Klaus BergerInstitute of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNewly approved, drug-modifying therapies are associated with still unknown adverse events, although clinical trials leading to approval have strict inclusion and exclusion criteria and analyse safety and efficacy.

objectivesThe aim of this study was to analyse the eligibility of multiple sclerosis (MS) patients treated in routine care into the phase III clinical trial of the respective drug.

methodsIn total, 3577 MS patients with 4312 therapies were analysed. Patients with primary-progressive MS were excluded. Inclusion and exclusion criteria of phase III clinical trials in relapsing-remitting MS were adopted and subsequently applied. A comparison in clinical and sociodemographic characteristics was made between patient who met the criteria and those who did not.

results83% of registered patients would not have been eligible to the respective phase III clinical trial. Relapse was the single most frequent criterion not fulfilled (74.7%), followed by medication history (21.2%).

conclusionThe majority of MS patients treated in routine care would not have met clinical trials criteria. Thus, the efficacy and safety of therapies in clinical trials can differ from those in the real world. Broader phase III inclusion criteria would increase their eligibility and contribute to a better generalizability of the results in clinical trials.

Indexed as

Multiple SclerosisMultiple Sclerosis, Chronic ProgressiveMultiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-RemittingHumansRecurrencedrug approvaldrug safetygeneralizabilityMultiple sclerosismultiple sclerosis disease therapypharmacoepidemiologyphase III clinical trialsregistry

Identifiers

PMID33467978
PMCPMC8521377

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.