ArticlePatient preference and adherence2021
A Study Comparing Patient and Clinician Perspectives of Treatments for Multiple Sclerosis via Group Concept Mapping.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Prevalence of Cognitive Impairment in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Neuropsychology review · 2025Pooled it
- Perspective of Disease and Treatment in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis: A Polish Multi-center Study.Neurology and therapy · 2025Article
- Patient and Physician Perspectives of Treatment Burden in Multiple Sclerosis.Neurology and therapy · 2024Article
- Development and validation of a psoriasis treatment acceptability measure through group concept mapping.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2023Article
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinicians treating multiple sclerosis (MS) should consider patient preferences when making treatment decisions. An online mixed-methods approach to elicit patient-centered concepts, group concept mapping (GCM), was used to generate statements reflecting the patient experience in relapsing-remitting MS and identify the most important patient-centered outcomes from patient and clinician perspectives. PATIENTS AND
methodsTwenty patients and 12 MS specialists in the United States provided statements describing what an ideal treatment would do to improve symptoms and daily functioning. Statements were sorted by participants into meaningful domains and rated on importance on an 11-point scale.
resultsSixty-four unique statements supporting 6 domains of clustered concepts were generated. Patient and clinician ratings of importance were highly correlated (
conclusionHigh levels of agreement of concept importance were found between patients and MS specialists, although certain domains and statements were rated more highly by one group. Overall, concepts such as cognitive function, physical and emotional functioning, and activities of daily living were perceived as having great importance for treatment outcomes versus symptom-focused outcomes like gait or tingling sensations. This comprehensive concept model for the MS patient experience can be used for further development of patient-centered outcome measures in MS treatment.
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.