ReviewNeurology and therapy2024
Insights for Healthcare Providers on Shared Decision-Making in Multiple Sclerosis: A Narrative Review.
Review in Neurology and therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ocrelizumab Discontinuation vs. Continuation After Safety Events: Comparative Insights from MSBase.Current neuropharmacology · 2026Article
- Real-World Perspectives on Switching Patients with Multiple Sclerosis from Anti-CD20 Therapy to Cladribine Tablets from USA-Based Advanced Practice Providers: A Podcast.Advances in therapy · 2025Article
- Choosing initial MS therapy; personal, disease, and medication factors.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2025Review
- Patient Experiences with the Impacts of Multiple Sclerosis & Disease-Modifying Therapies.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2025Article
- Patient and Physician Perspectives of Treatment Burden in Multiple Sclerosis.Neurology and therapy · 2024Article
- Insights from a Danish nationwide implementation of patient-reported outcomes in multiple sclerosis.Multiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinicalArticle
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
Shared decision-making (SDM) between the patient and their healthcare provider (HCP) in developing treatment plans is increasingly recognized as central to improving treatment adherence and, ultimately, patient outcomes. In multiple sclerosis (MS), SDM is particularly crucial for optimizing treatment in a landscape that has grown more complex with the availability of newer, high-efficacy MS therapies. However, little direct evidence on the effectiveness of SDM is available to guide practice. Multiple factors, including patient age, ethnic background, perceptions, invisible MS symptoms, and psychological comorbidities can influence a patient's willingness and ability to participate in SDM. HCPs need to appreciate these factors and ask the right questions to break down obstacles to SDM. The HCP has a responsibility to help patients feel adequately informed and comfortable in having an active role in their care. This review identifies potential barriers to SDM and provides a strategy for HCPs to overcome these obstacles through patient (and caregiver) discussions to ensure optimal patient satisfaction with treatment and thus the best possible outcomes for their patients.
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.