SynthesisEuropean journal of neurology2024
Exploring the therapeutic potential of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in progressive multiple sclerosis-a systematic review.
Synthesis in European journal of neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Exploring the therapeutic potential of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in progressive multiple sclerosis-a systematic review.European journal of neurology · 2024Pooled it
- Glial cells in chronic inflammation: diversity, dysfunction and therapeutic targeting.Nature reviews. Immunology · 2026Review
- Autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation stabilizes retinal atrophy in multiple sclerosis.Brain communications · 2026Article
- Article
- Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for multiple sclerosis: no inflammation, no response.European journal of neurology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeThe aim was to determine the value of autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (aHSCT) as a therapeutic intervention for progressive multiple sclerosis (PMS) based on a systematic review of the current literature.
methodsAll studies from the databases PubMed and Google Scholar published in English before February 2024 which provided individual data for PMS patients were systematically reviewed. PICO was defined as population (P), primary progressive MS and secondary progressive MS patients; intervention (I), treatment with aHSCT; comparison (C), none, disease-modifying therapy treated/relapsing-remitting MS cohorts if available; outcome (O), transplant-related mortality, progression-free survival (PFS) and no evidence of disease activity.
resultsA total of 15 studies met the criteria including 665 patients with PMS (74 primary progressive MS, 591 secondary progressive MS) and 801 patients with relapsing-remitting MS as controls. PFS data were available for 647 patients. PMS patients showed more severe disability at baseline than relapsing-remitting MS patients. The average transplant-related mortality for PMS in 10 studies was 1.9%, with 10 deaths in 528 patients. PFS ranged from 0% to 78% in PMS groups 5 years after treatment initiation, demonstrating a high variability. No evidence of disease activity scores at 5 years ranged from 0% to 75%.
conclusionBased on the available data, aHSCT does not halt progression in people with PMS. However, there appears to be evidence of improved outcome in selected patients. Due to the heterogeneity of the available data, more comprehensive clinical trials assessing the efficacy of aHSCT across different patient groups are urgently needed to reduce variability and improve patient stratification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.