ReviewDer Nervenarzt2020
[Core aspects of a needs-conform care of patients with multiple sclerosis : Utilization of outpatient services and shared decision making].
Review in Der Nervenarzt, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-term cross sectoral care and case management for people with severe multiple sclerosis and their caregivers - impact on dimensions of life.BMC health services research · 2026Trial
- "So at least now I know how to deal with things myself, what I can do if it gets really bad again"-experiences with a long-term cross-sectoral advocacy care and case management for severe multiple sclerosis: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDue to the necessity for lifelong treatment, high costs for the healthcare system and changes in role expectations of patients towards physicians, multiple sclerosis (MS) is an important topic in healthcare research.
objectiveThe aim of this review is to provide an overview of the current study situation in Germany in 2020 on utilization of outpatient medical resources and shared decision making in patients with MS. MATERIAL AND
methodsFor this review a literature search was carried out in PubMed and other extended sources in order to identify and present relevant publications.
resultsThere are only a few studies on the utilization of outpatient medical resources by patients with MS in Germany. The highest values for utilization were found for general practitioners, family physicians and neurologists whereas urologists were less frequently involved. The values for the utilization of services provided by physiotherapists greatly differed between the studies. Several studies using different approaches to shared decision making in Germany were identified and summarized. An important prerequisite for shared decision making is an adequate knowledge on the side of the patients.
conclusionDifferences in the utilization of outpatient resources by MS patients in Germany can be explained by methodological differences and limitations of the individual studies. The use of shared decision making by MS patients is demanded by various parties but so far there is little evidence for a positive effect on the disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32333050What 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.