ArticleInternational journal of MS care2011
Successful management of a neurology infusion practice.
Article in International journal of MS care, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Qualitative factors shaping MS patients' experiences of infusible disease-modifying drugs: a critical incident technique analysis.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Patient preferences and satisfaction in a multispecialty infusion center.Patient preference and adherence · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The increasing use of infusible biologic therapies, including the novel monoclonal antibody natalizumab for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis, has elicited much interest among neurologists in the provision of in-office infusions for their patients. An in-office infusion center may offer neurologists a means to provide integrated care for their patients in a familiar and supportive environment. This setting is especially convenient for chronically ill patients, allowing them to receive high-quality care under the direct supervision of their neurologist and facility staff. By administering infusible treatments in a neurology practice rather than referring patients to a hospital or oncology/hematology-based infusion center, the primary neurologist can more closely monitor clinical outcomes, treatment adherence, and the occurrence of adverse effects. In addition, there is greater opportunity for patient interaction and education, which can strengthen relationships with clinical caregivers. This model is also applicable to multispecialty or hospital-based neurology groups desiring to integrate neurology infusion services. In this article, we discuss overall management strategies; staffing and scheduling issues; general coding, billing, and reimbursement methodologies; and additional financial considerations.
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.