ArticleMultiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinical
Patient and physician preferences for multiple sclerosis treatments in Germany: A discrete-choice experiment 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 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Severity or Incidence: Labeling Side-Effect Attributes in Discrete Choice Experiments.The patient · 2026Article
- Article
- Treatment Preferences of Physicians Treating Adult Patients with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in the United States and Canada: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Neurology and therapy · 2025Article
- Unveiling preferences in multiple sclerosis care: insights from an Italian discrete-choice experiment with patients and healthcare professionals.Journal of neurology · 2024Article
- Patient-based benefit-risk assessment of medicines: development, refinement, and validation of a content search strategy to retrieve relevant studies.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2022Article
- Concordance Between Persons with Multiple Sclerosis and Treating Physician on Medication Effects and Health Status.Patient preference and adherence · 2021Article
- Patient and Neurologist Preferences in the United States for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis Treatments: Findings from a Discrete Choice Experiment.Patient preference and adherence · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess heterogeneity in patient and physician preferences for multiple sclerosis treatment features and outcomes via a discrete-choice experiment.
methodPatients with self-reported multiple sclerosis and treating physicians participated in an online discrete-choice experiment. Patients, each considering a better or worse reference condition, and physicians, each considering two patient profiles, chose between hypothetical treatment profiles defined by seven attributes with varying levels: years until disability progression, number of relapses in the decade, mode of administration, dosing frequency, and risks of mild, moderate, and severe side effects. Latent class analysis was used to measure respondent preferences and identify potential subgroups with distinct preferences.
resultsDistinct treatment preferences emerged among subgroups of patients (
conclusionPatients and physicians have diverse preferences for multiple sclerosis treatments, reflecting heterogeneity in the disease course and available therapies and the need for shared decision making.
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.