Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24453711›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of MS care2011

Successful management of a neurology infusion practice.

John F Foley, Anne M Dunne

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

John F FoleyRocky Mountain Multiple Sclerosis Clinic, Salt Lake City, UT, USA (JFF); and Grassi & Co, Healthcare Niche, Jericho, NY, USA (AMD).
Anne M DunneRocky Mountain Multiple Sclerosis Clinic, Salt Lake City, UT, USA (JFF); and Grassi & Co, Healthcare Niche, Jericho, NY, USA (AMD).

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID24453711
PMCPMC3882956

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.