ArticleJournal of education and health promotion2014
A comparative study on iMed(©) and European database for multiple sclerosis to propose a common language of multiple sclerosis data elements.
Article in Journal of education and health promotion, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Introducing a core dataset for real-world data in multiple sclerosis registries and cohorts: Recommendations from a global task force.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2024Article
- Long-term effectiveness in patients previously treated with cladribine tablets: a real-world analysis of the Italian multiple sclerosis registry (CLARINET-MS).Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2020Article
- Development of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) for C-Section Anesthesia Information Management System (AIMS).Anesthesiology and pain medicine · 2017Article
- The Role of Information Systems to Manage Cerebral Palsy.Iranian journal of child neurology · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextEstablishing and developing minimum data set (MDS), controlled vocabularies, taxonomies and classification systems are requirements of health information system in every society.
aimsThe aim of this study was to propose an integrated multiple sclerosis (MS) data set by comparing European database for multiple sclerosis (EDMUS Coordinating Center Lyon, France) and iMed(©) software's (iMed, Merck Serono SA - Geneva). EDMUS is being developed at the EDMUS coordinating centers in Lyon, France and iMed(©) is owned and distributed by Merck Serono in Geneva, Switzerland. SETTINGS AND DESIGNS: Retrieval of data of MDS performed through scholars responsible in related agencies and clinics. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis research was an applied. The study was comparative-exploratory. In this study, data elements in iMed(©) and EDMUS software's were compared. Data collecting tool was data raw form. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Results analyzing was carried out in a descriptive-comparative method. MS data elements were proposed in three general categories: administrative; clinical; and socio-economic. In this study, a MS data set was suggested by studying data elements of EDMUS and iMed(©) softwares.
resultsThe MS data set includes administrative, clinical and socio-economic data elements that collect information of MS patients during the treatment course. iMed(©), EDMUS and other available databases are suitable patterns for determining and recognizing MS key data elements.
conclusionDeveloping MS data set in this study and studying other available MS information systems result in establishing standardized MS data set. By establishing this data set, it will be possible to present MS MDS internationally. MS MDS is the main base of establishing MS information systems at different levels.
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.