Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34612826›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

Multiple Sclerosis Progression Discussion Tool Usability and Usefulness in Clinical Practice: Cross-sectional, Web-Based Survey.

Tjalf Ziemssen, Gavin Giovannoni, Enrique Alvarez, Virender Bhan, Carrie Hersh, Olaf Hoffmann, Celia Oreja-Guevara, Rene R Robles-Cedeño, Maria Trojano, Patrick Vermersch and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Enhancing Nurse-Robot Engagement: Two-Wave Survey Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
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

17 authors at 13 institutions in 9 countries.

Tjalf ZiemssenCenter of Clinical Neuroscience, Neurological University Clinic Carl-Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8799-8202
Gavin GiovannoniBlizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9995-1700
Enrique AlvarezUniversity of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5854-9643
Virender BhanUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8275-5241
Carrie HershCleveland Clinic Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health, Las Vegas, NV, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5716-5645
Olaf HoffmannDepartment of Neurology, St Josefs-Krankenhaus, Potsdam, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6399-1911
Celia Oreja-GuevaraDepartment of Neurology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-9221-5716
Rene R Robles-CedeñoDepartment of Neurology, Girona Neuroimmunology & Multiple Sclerosis Unit, Dr. Josep Trueta University Hospital & Santa Caterina Hospital, Girona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-3065-1077
Maria TrojanoDepartment of Basic Medical Sciences, Neuroscience and Sense Organs, University of Bari, Bari, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6329-8946
Patrick VermerschUniversity of Lille, INSERM U1172, Lille Neuroscience and Cognition, CHU Lille, FHU Precise, Lille, France.ORCID 0000-0003-0997-8817
Pamela DobayReal World Evidence Solutions, IQVIA AG, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-2611-0649
Mudeer KhwajaNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-2036-4405
Bianca StadlerNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-6768-0157
Benedict RauserNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-4003-4208
Thomas HachNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-2229-1545
Daniela Piani-MeierNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-0890-9422
Jason BurtonCentre for Neuromuscular and Neurological Disorders, Western Australian Neuroscience Research Institute, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5924-0645
Novartis (Switzerland) · CHCleveland Clinic · USHospital Clínico San Carlos · ESHospital Santa Caterina · ESInserm · FRIQVIA (United Kingdom) · GBQueen Mary University of London · GBSt. Josef Krankenhaus · DEThe University of Western Australia · AUUniversity Hospital Carl Gustav Carus · DEUniversity of Bari Aldo Moro · ITUniversity of British Columbia · CAUniversity of Colorado Denver · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA digital tool, Multiple Sclerosis Progression Discussion Tool (MSProDiscuss), was developed to facilitate discussions between health care professionals (HCPs) and patients in evaluating early, subtle signs of multiple sclerosis (MS) disease progression.

objectiveThe aim of this study is to report the findings on the usability and usefulness of MSProDiscuss in a real-world clinical setting.

methodsIn this cross-sectional, web-based survey, HCPs across 34 countries completed an initial individual questionnaire (comprising 7 questions on comprehensibility, usability, and usefulness after using MSProDiscuss during each patient consultation) and a final questionnaire (comprising 13 questions on comprehensibility, usability, usefulness, and integration and adoption into clinical practice to capture the HCPs' overall experience of using the tool). The responses were provided on a 5-point Likert scale. All analyses were descriptive, and no statistical comparisons were made.

resultsIn total, 301 HCPs tested the tool in 6974 people with MS, of whom 77% (5370/6974) had relapsing-remitting MS, including those suspected to be transitioning to secondary progressive MS. The time taken to complete MSProDiscuss was reported to be in the range of 1 to 4 minutes in 97.3% (6786/6974; initial) to 98.2% (269/274; final) of the cases. In 93.54% (6524/6974; initial) to 97.1% (266/274; final) of the cases, the HCPs agreed (4 or 5 on the Likert scale) that patients were able to comprehend the questions in the tool. The HCPs were willing to use the tool again in the same patient, 90.47% (6310/6974; initial) of the cases. The HCPs reported MSProDiscuss to be useful in discussing MS symptoms and their impact on daily activities (6121/6974, 87.76% initial and 252/274, 92% final) and cognitive function (5482/6974, 78.61% initial and 271/274, 79.2% final), as well as in discussing progression in general (6102/6974, 87.49% initial and 246/274, 89.8% final). While completing the final questionnaire, 94.9% (260/274) of the HCPs agreed that the questions were similar to those asked in regular consultation, and the tool helped to better understand the impact of MS symptoms on daily activities (249/274, 90.9%) and cognitive function (220/274, 80.3%). Overall, 92% (252/274) of the HCPs reported that they would recommend MSProDiscuss to a colleague, and 85.8% (235/274) were willing to integrate it into their clinical practice.

conclusionsMSProDiscuss is a usable and useful tool to facilitate a physician-patient discussion on MS disease progression in daily clinical practice. Most of the HCPs agreed that the tool is easy to use and were willing to integrate MSProDiscuss into their daily clinical practice.

Indexed as

Multiple SclerosisMultiple Sclerosis, Chronic ProgressiveCross-Sectional StudiesDisease ProgressionHumansInternetdigitalmultiple sclerosisprogressionrelapsing remitting multiple sclerosissecondary progressive multiple sclerosistransitionusability

Identifiers

PMID34612826
PMCPMC8529467
OpenAlexW3184969801

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.