ArticleBMC health services research2018
Resilience, trust, and civic engagement in the post-CCSVI era.
Article in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty for treatment of chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI) in people with multiple sclerosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- "I Will Respect the Autonomy of My Patient": A Scoping Review of Shared Decision Making in Multiple Sclerosis.International journal of MS careArticle
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
Abstract
backgroundScientific and financial investments in chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI) research have been made to address both the hope for and scepticism over this interventional strategy for MS. Despite limited evidence in support of the CCSVI hypothesis, the funding of clinical research was responsive to a demand by the public rarely seen in the history of medicine. We characterize patient perspectives about the CCSVI research trajectory, with particular attention to its impact on other non-pharmaceutical areas of MS research with a focus on stem cell interventions.
methodsSemi-structured interviews with 20 MS patients across Canada who did not have CCSVI interventions. Interviews were analysed for recurring themes and individual variations using the constant comparative approach.
resultsParticipants had a critical view of the divestment of funds from longstanding research to support CCSVI trials. They retain a sense of optimism, however, about emerging evidence for stem cell interventions for MS, and highlight the need for greater caution and conscientious communication of advances in medicine and science.
conclusionsThe unrealized hopes for CCSVI challenged but did not undermine the resilience of patient communities. The narrative that unfolded highlights the importance of drawing a socially-minded space for public participation in science.
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.