I think that this paper is cited because it is a comprehensive (and hopefully critical) analysis of the role of disease-modifying therapies in the treatment of MS. The use of these therapies has been quite controversial and this paper uses an objective evidence-based approach to understand the value of the different therapies.

  Does it describe a new discovery or a new methodology that's useful to others?

It was a topic that was considered very important both to the American Academy of Neurology and to the MS Council for Clinical Practice Guidelines. These two organizations are responsible for producing evidence-based guidelines relating to various topics in neurology.

  Could you summarize the significance of your paper in layman's terms?

This paper reviews the scientific evidence for the use of various disease-modifying therapies in the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS). These therapies include the immunosuppressant agents, glucocorticoids (steroids), in addition to newer agents such as beta-interferon (Avonex, Betaseron, and Rebif) and glatiramer acetate (Copaxone). It is concluded that all of the newer agents have good evidence for partial efficacy (Type A recommendation) with respect for their ability to reduce the attack rate of MS. There is less evidence for the ability of these agents to reduce the severity of MS, although the data is more convincing in this regard for beta-interferon therapy (Type B Recommendation) than it is for glatiramer acetate (Type C Recommendation). The evidence in favor of the effectiveness of immunosuppressant or steroid therapy is, in general, less compelling than it is for either of these newer agents.

Douglas S. Goodin,
Professor of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco
Director, UCSF Multiple Sclerosis Center
San Francisco, CA, USA