Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30105155›Full record

ArticleNeurology. Clinical practice2018

Identifying priority outcomes that influence selection of disease-modifying therapies in MS.

Gregory S Day, Alexander Rae-Grant, Melissa J Armstrong, Tamara Pringsheim, Stacey S Cofield, Ruth Ann Marrie

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neurology. Clinical practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The WHOQOL-BREF: a modern psychometric evaluation of its internal construct validity in people with multiple sclerosis.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2020
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

6 authors.

Gregory S DayThe Charles F. and Joanne Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center, Department of Neurology (GSD), Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Department of Neurology (AR-G), Cleveland Clinic, OH; Department of Neurology (MJA), University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville; Departments of Community Health Sciences and Clinical Neurosciences and Hotchkiss Brain Institute and O'Brien Institute for Public Health (TP), University of Calgary, Canada; Department of Biostatistics (SSC), University of Alabama Birmingham; and Departments of Internal Medicine and Community Health Sciences, Max Rady College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences (RAM), University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
Alexander Rae-GrantThe Charles F. and Joanne Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center, Department of Neurology (GSD), Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Department of Neurology (AR-G), Cleveland Clinic, OH; Department of Neurology (MJA), University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville; Departments of Community Health Sciences and Clinical Neurosciences and Hotchkiss Brain Institute and O'Brien Institute for Public Health (TP), University of Calgary, Canada; Department of Biostatistics (SSC), University of Alabama Birmingham; and Departments of Internal Medicine and Community Health Sciences, Max Rady College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences (RAM), University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
Melissa J ArmstrongThe Charles F. and Joanne Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center, Department of Neurology (GSD), Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Department of Neurology (AR-G), Cleveland Clinic, OH; Department of Neurology (MJA), University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville; Departments of Community Health Sciences and Clinical Neurosciences and Hotchkiss Brain Institute and O'Brien Institute for Public Health (TP), University of Calgary, Canada; Department of Biostatistics (SSC), University of Alabama Birmingham; and Departments of Internal Medicine and Community Health Sciences, Max Rady College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences (RAM), University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
Tamara PringsheimThe Charles F. and Joanne Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center, Department of Neurology (GSD), Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Department of Neurology (AR-G), Cleveland Clinic, OH; Department of Neurology (MJA), University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville; Departments of Community Health Sciences and Clinical Neurosciences and Hotchkiss Brain Institute and O'Brien Institute for Public Health (TP), University of Calgary, Canada; Department of Biostatistics (SSC), University of Alabama Birmingham; and Departments of Internal Medicine and Community Health Sciences, Max Rady College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences (RAM), University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
Stacey S CofieldThe Charles F. and Joanne Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center, Department of Neurology (GSD), Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Department of Neurology (AR-G), Cleveland Clinic, OH; Department of Neurology (MJA), University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville; Departments of Community Health Sciences and Clinical Neurosciences and Hotchkiss Brain Institute and O'Brien Institute for Public Health (TP), University of Calgary, Canada; Department of Biostatistics (SSC), University of Alabama Birmingham; and Departments of Internal Medicine and Community Health Sciences, Max Rady College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences (RAM), University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
Ruth Ann MarrieThe Charles F. and Joanne Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center, Department of Neurology (GSD), Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Department of Neurology (AR-G), Cleveland Clinic, OH; Department of Neurology (MJA), University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville; Departments of Community Health Sciences and Clinical Neurosciences and Hotchkiss Brain Institute and O'Brien Institute for Public Health (TP), University of Calgary, Canada; Department of Biostatistics (SSC), University of Alabama Birmingham; and Departments of Internal Medicine and Community Health Sciences, Max Rady College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences (RAM), University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.

Funding

AHRQ HHS K08 HS024159
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPersons with multiple sclerosis (MS) may now choose from a broad array of approved disease-modifying treatments (DMTs). The priority that patients and practitioners assign to specific clinical outcomes is likely to influence the MS DMT selection process.

methodsWe invited 9,126 participants in the North American Research Committee on Multiple Sclerosis (NARCOMS) Registry and 18 members of the American Academy of Neurology MS DMT guideline development panel to complete a brief survey prioritizing outcomes of importance to MS DMT selection. The frequency of outcomes ranked as first, second, or third priority by respondents were compared across groups.

resultsA total of 2,056 of 9,126 (23.6%) NARCOMS participants and all 18 members of the MS DMT guideline development panel (100%) completed the survey. Reduced disability progression was identified as a priority by a majority of respondents in both groups. Guideline panelists tended to be more likely than persons with MS to prioritize relapse rate reduction (

conclusionSpecific outcomes were defined by similar proportions of persons with MS and guideline panelists as priority outcomes influencing MS DMT selection. Several of these priority outcomes were not routinely reported in clinical trials, identifying areas for future evidence development.

Identifiers

PMID30105155
PMCPMC6075970

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.