ArticleMultiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinical
Timely intervention, monitoring and education MATTERS in MS (TIME MATTERS in MS): Development of a globally applicable quality improvement tool.
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 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.
- MS brain health quality standards: a survey on the reality in clinical practice in Germany.Neurological research and practice · 2024Article
- Building digital patient pathways for the management and treatment of multiple sclerosis.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Previously, consensus MS care standards were defined by MS specialist neurologists from 19 countries. We developed, piloted and refined an Excel-based quality improvement tool to enable MS services to benchmark against these standards. Here, we examine the refined tool. Objective: To determine the applicability of the quality improvement tool in different healthcare settings. Methods: MS centres across the globe were invited to pilot the quality improvement tool by coding the medical records of 36 adults with MS. We invited feedback on user friendliness, quality improvement tool usefulness and relevance of data collected. Results: Seventeen centres from 14 countries participated; 14 completed the post-service evaluation survey. Over 50% of responders rated the tool 'very easy' or 'easy' to use and 'very relevant' to their service. Almost 85% of responders (11/13) planned to introduce changes to their service, including improvements in documentation, communication, interactions with colleagues and referrals; 85% would use a future shorter version of the tool. Conclusions: The quality improvement tool can enable MS centres globally to benchmark their services. Widespread uptake of a shorter tool may help MS centres to work towards achieving consensus standards for brain health-focused care. Incorporation into routine clinical practice would drive adoption.
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.