ArticleBMJ open2024
Physician awareness and understanding of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy in Japan: a web-based study.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate potential knowledge gaps between neurologists and non-specialists and identify challenges in the current management of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP), with a focus on 'early diagnosis' and 'appropriate treatment' for CIDP.
designA non-interventional, cross-sectional, web-based quantitative survey of physicians working in healthcare clinics or hospitals in Japan.
settingParticipants were recruited from the Nikkei Business Publications panel from 18 August to 14 September 2022.
participantsResponses from 360 physicians (120 each of internists, orthopaedists and neurologists) were collected. OUTCOME MEASURES: Responses relating to a CIDP hypothetical case and current understanding were assessed to determine awareness, collaboration preferences and diagnosis and treatment decisions.
resultsUnderstanding of CIDP was 90.8% among neurologists, 10.8% among orthopaedists and 13.3% among internists; >80% of orthopaedists and internists answered that neurologists are preferable for treatment. Diagnostic assessment using a hypothetical case showed 95.0% of neurologists, 74.2% of orthopaedists and 72.5% of internists suspected CIDP. Among orthopaedists and internists suspecting CIDP, >70% considered referring to neurology, while ~10% considered continuing treatment without a referral. Among neurologists, 69.4% chose intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) as first-line treatment and determined effectiveness to be ≤3 months.
conclusionsOrthopaedists and internists had lower CIDP awareness compared with neurologists, which may lead to inadequate referrals to neurology. Evaluation of IVIg effectiveness for maintenance therapy occurred earlier than the guideline recommendations (6-12 months), risking premature discontinuation. Improving CIDP knowledge among orthopaedists and internists is critical for better diagnosis and collaboration with neurologists. Neurologists should consider slow and careful evaluation of IVIg maintenance therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000048516.
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.