↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Immunotherapy for IgM anti-myelin-associated glycoprotein paraprotein-associated peripheral neuropathies

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
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 (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
91 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
199 Mendeley
Title
Immunotherapy for IgM anti-myelin-associated glycoprotein paraprotein-associated peripheral neuropathies
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002827.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael PT Lunn, Eduardo Nobile-Orazio

Abstract

Serum monoclonal anti-myelin-associated glycoprotein (anti-MAG) antibodies may be pathogenic in some people with immunoglobulin M (IgM) paraprotein and demyelinating neuropathy. Immunotherapies aimed at reducing the level of these antibodies might be expected to be beneficial. This is an update of a review first published in 2003 and previously updated in 2006 and 2012. To assess the effects of immunotherapy for IgM anti-MAG paraprotein-associated demyelinating peripheral neuropathy. On 1 February 2016 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We also checked trials registers and bibliographies, and contacted authors and experts in the field. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs involving participants of any age treated with any type of immunotherapy for anti-MAG antibody-associated demyelinating peripheral neuropathy with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and of any severity.Our primary outcome measures were numbers of participants improved in disability assessed with either or both of the Neuropathy Impairment Scale (NIS) or the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at six months after randomisation. Secondary outcome measures were: mean improvement in disability, assessed with either the NIS or the mRS, 12 months after randomisation; change in impairment as measured by improvement in the 10-metre walk time, change in a validated linear disability measure such as the Rasch-built Overall Disability Scale (R-ODS) at six and 12 months after randomisation, change in subjective clinical scores and electrophysiological parameters at six and 12 months after randomisation; change in serum IgM paraprotein concentration or anti-MAG antibody titre at six months after randomisation; and adverse effects of treatments. We followed standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We identified eight eligible trials (236 participants), which tested intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), interferon alfa-2a, plasma exchange, cyclophosphamide and steroids, and rituximab. Two trials of IVIg (22 and 11 participants, including 20 with antibodies against MAG), had comparable interventions and outcomes, but both were short-term trials. We also included two trials of rituximab with comparable interventions and outcomes.There were very few clinical or statistically significant benefits of the treatments used on the outcomes predefined for this review, but not all the predefined outcomes were used in every included trial and more responsive outcomes are being developed. A well-performed trial of IVIg, which was at low risk of bias, showed a statistical benefit in terms of improvement in mRS at two weeks and 10-metre walk time at four weeks, but these short-term outcomes are of questionable clinical significance. Cyclophosphamide failed to show any benefit in the single trial's primary outcome, and showed a barely significant benefit in the primary outcome specified here, but some toxic adverse events were identified.Two trials of rituximab (80 participants) have been published, one of which (26 participants) was at high risk of bias. In the meta-analysis, although the data are of low quality, rituximab is beneficial in improving disability scales (Inflammatory Neuropathy Cause and Treatment (INCAT) improved at eight to 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 3.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.30 to 9.45; 73 participants)) and significantly more participants improve in the global impression of change score (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.71; 70 participants). Other measures did not improve significantly, but wide CIs do not preclude some effect. Reported adverse effects of rituximab were few, and mostly minor.There were few serious adverse events in the other trials. There is inadequate reliable evidence from trials of immunotherapies in anti-MAG paraproteinaemic neuropathy to form an evidence base supporting any particular immunotherapy treatment. IVIg has a statistically but probably not clinically significant benefit in the short term. The meta-analysis of two trials of rituximab provides, however, low-quality evidence of a benefit from this agent. The conclusions of this meta-analysis await confirmation, as one of the two included studies is of very low quality. We require large well-designed randomised trials of at least 12 months' duration to assess existing or novel therapies, preferably employing unified, consistent, well-designed, responsive, and valid outcome measures.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters 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 199 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 198 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 30 15%
Student > Master 26 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 10%
Other 18 9%
Student > Bachelor 13 7%
Other 46 23%
Unknown 47 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 38%
Neuroscience 14 7%
Unspecified 11 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 5%
Psychology 9 5%
Other 28 14%
Unknown 51 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 October 2017.
All research outputs
#3,592,142
of 22,931,367 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,088
of 12,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,792
of 320,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#145
of 285 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,931,367 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,331 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 320,101 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 285 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.