ArticleBMJ open2024
Experiences of fatigued persons with multiple sclerosis with multimodal agility-based exercise training and the ReFEx study protocol: a qualitative extension of a feasibility study.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Actual and imagined music-cued gait training for people with multiple sclerosis: a multicentre qualitative study.BMJ open · 2024Trial
- Disentangling Fatigue Dimensions in Multiple Sclerosis: Differential Associations with Health-Related Quality of Life Outcomes in RRMS.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectives(1) To explore experiences of fatigued persons with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) with a new multimodal agility-based exercise training (MAT) framework and (2) to investigate the demands of the Rehabilitation, Fatigue, and Exercise (ReFEx) study protocol, which compares high-frequency MAT and 'traditional' strength and endurance training (SET) to identify possible adaptations for a powered randomised controlled trial (RCT).
designA qualitative interview study nested within a feasibility RCT, comparing MAT and SET.
settingNeurological inpatient rehabilitation centre in Germany.
participantsTwenty-two pwMS were recruited for the feasibility study. Six were selected from MAT and SET, respectively, for semistructured face-to-face interviews prior to discharge, following a purposive sampling strategy. Participants had low physical disability but were at least moderately fatigued.
interventionsDuring inpatient rehabilitation (4-6 weeks) MAT participants attended group-based and manual-based MAT sessions in the gym (5×/week, 30 min) and the pool (3×/week, 30 min). SET participants exercised individually on a cycle ergometer (5×/week, 22 min) and on strength training machines (3×/week, 30 min).
resultsThree key categories emerged from the interviews: (1)
conclusionsMAT is appreciated by pwMS and includes facilitators less attainable with 'traditional' SET. Evaluation of MAT in a powered RCT is indicated, if rest breaks postsession, and screening for negative self-evaluation and social comparison are considered. Future (qualitative) research should investigate the important factors of inpatient rehabilitation contributing to fatigue reduction in pwMS. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00023943; German Clinical Trials Register.
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.