ArticleMultiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England)2023
Do the current MS clinical course descriptors need to change and if so how? A survey of the MS community.
Article in Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- AI-driven reclassification of multiple sclerosis progression.Nature medicine · 2025Article
- Towards a biological view of multiple sclerosis from early subtle to clinical progression: an expert opinion.Journal of neurology · 2025Review
- The refined Pathways to Cures Research Roadmap for multiple sclerosis cures.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2024Article
- A rapid review of differences in cerebrospinal neurofilament light levels in clinical subtypes of progressive multiple sclerosis.Frontiers in neurology · 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
14 authors at 11 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThe current clinical course descriptors of multiple sclerosis (MS) include a combination of clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features. Recently there has been a growing call to base these descriptors more firmly on biological mechanisms. We investigated the implications of proposing a new mechanism-driven framework for describing MS.
methodsIn a web-based survey, multiple stakeholders rated the need to change current MS clinical course descriptors, the definitions of disease course and their value in clinical practice and related topics.
resultsWe received 502 responses across 49 countries. In all, 77% of the survey respondents supported changing the current MS clinical course descriptors. They preferred a framework that informs treatment decisions, aids the design and conduct of clinical trials, allows patients to understand their disease, and links disease mechanisms and clinical expression of disease. Clinical validation before dissemination and ease of communication to patients were rated as the most important aspects to consider when developing any new framework for describing MS.
conclusionA majority of MS stakeholders agreed that the current MS clinical course descriptors need to change. Any change process will need to engage a wide range of affected stakeholders and be guided by foundational principles.
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.