ArticleBMC medicine2007
Analysis of NAMCS data for multiple sclerosis, 1998-2004.
Article in BMC medicine, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patterns and Predictors of Depression Treatment among Older Adults with Parkinson's Disease and Depression in Ambulatory Care Settings in the United States.Parkinson's disease · 2018Article
- Depression Treatment among Adults with Multiple Sclerosis and Depression in Ambulatory Care Settings in the United States.Multiple sclerosis international · 2017Article
- Management of COPD in the UK primary-care setting: an analysis of real-life prescribing patterns.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2014Article
- Trends in gastroesophageal reflux disease as measured by the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2010Article
- 29 gauge needles improve patient satisfaction over 27 gauge needles for daily glatiramer acetate injections.Drug, healthcare and patient safety · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo our knowledge, no study to date has investigated the prescribing patterns of immunomodulatory agents (IMAs) in an outpatient setting in the United States. To address this issue, we performed retrospective data analyses on National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) data for MS patient visits between 1998 and 2004.
methodsNAMCS data are a weighted estimate of the nationwide frequency of patients' outpatient clinic visits. We analyzed NAMCS data in the following categories: (1) the proportion of MS patient visits to neurologists, family practitioners or internists, (2) age/gender/race/geographical distribution patterns in patient visits, and (3) the proportion of patients on IMA treatment among established MS patients.
resultsThere were an estimated 6.7 million multiple sclerosis (MS) patient visits to the clinics between 1998-2004. Neurologists recorded the most patient visits, 50.7%. Patient visits were mostly in the fourth and fifth decade age group (57.9%). The male to female ratio was 1:4. No statistical evidence was observed for a decline or increase in IMA usage. About 62% patients visiting neurologists and 92% seen by family practitioners/internists were not using IMAs. Our results suggest that between the years 1998-2003, the use of interferon-1a tended to decline while the use of interferon-1b and glatiramer acetate, increased.
conclusionStrategies that lead to improved use of IMAs in the management of MS in the outpatient setting are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.