ArticleMultiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinical
Evaluation of an integrated multidisciplinary approach in multiple sclerosis care: A prospective, randomized, controlled study.
Article in Multiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinical. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of pragmatic randomized trials in multiple sclerosis: A systematic overview.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2024Pooled it
- The effect of nurse practitioner (NP-led) care on health-related quality of life in people with multiple sclerosis - a randomized trial.BMC neurology · 2022Trial
- Delivering high-quality multiple sclerosis care in Germany: challenges and regional models.Neurological research and practice · 2026Review
- Investigating depression in multiple sclerosis: an Italian Delphi consensus on clinical manifestations, diagnosis and treatment.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Good multiple sclerosis (MS) care and how to get there in Canada: Perspectives of Canadian healthcare providers working with persons with MS.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- Healthcare utilization in multiple sclerosis: Impact of disease modifying therapies and comorbidities.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2022Article
- The Multiple Sclerosis Care Unit.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDisabled multiple sclerosis (MS) patients often need intervention of multiple specialists, resulting in a complex organization of care. How this multidisciplinary care should be organized and structured has not been studied.
objectiveThe objective of this article is to address the effectiveness of an integrated multidisciplinary approach versus usual care in MS patients.
methodsThis is a prospective, randomized, controlled, monocentric clinical trial in MS patients. Two treatment strategies were compared: (i) an integrated multidisciplinary (IMD) approach, consisting of a half-day individually tailored comprehensive assessment in the MS clinic; and (ii) a standard care. The primary outcome was the impact of the strategy on quality of life (QoL) measured using the MSIS-29 scale at inclusion and after six months.
resultsFifty MS patients were included. Median MSIS 29 score decreased over six months in the control group (-4.89) and increased in the IMD group (+2.00), with a significant difference between the two groups (
conclusionsThis prospective, randomized study is the first attempt to evaluate the multidisciplinary approach in MS patients. The results show that, contrary to our expectations, an integrated multidisciplinary approach is not superior to usual care on QoL.
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.