ArticlePloS one2024
Adherence to practice parameters in Medicare beneficiaries with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.
Article in PloS one, 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivePhysician adherence to evidence-based clinical practice parameters impacts outcomes of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) patients. We sought to investigate compliance with the 2009 practice parameters for treatment of ALS patients in the United States, and sociodemographic and provider characteristics associated with adherence.
methodsIn this population-based, retrospective cohort study of incident ALS patients in 2009-2014, we included all Medicare beneficiaries age ≥20 with ≥1 International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification ALS code (335.20) in 2009 and no prior years (N = 8,575). Variables of interest included race/ethnicity, sex, age, urban residence, Area Deprivation Index (ADI), and provider specialty (neurologist vs. non-neurologist). Outcomes were use of practice parameters, which included feeding tubes, non-invasive ventilation (NIV), riluzole, and receiving care from a neurologist.
resultsOverall, 42.9% of patients with ALS received neurologist care. Black beneficiaries (odds ratio [OR] 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-0.67), older beneficiaries (OR 0.964, 95% CI 0.961-0.968 per year), and those living in disadvantaged areas (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.61-0.80) received less care from neurologists. Overall, only 26.7% of beneficiaries received a feeding tube, 19.2% NIV, and 15.3% riluzole. Neurologist-treated patients were more likely to receive interventions than other ALS patients: feeding tube (OR 2.80, 95% CI 2.52-3.11); NIV (OR 10.8, 95% CI 9.28-12.6); and riluzole (OR 7.67, 95% CI 6.13-9.58), after adjusting for sociodemographics. These associations remained marked and significant when we excluded ALS patients who subsequently received a code for other diseases that mimic ALS.
conclusionsALS patients treated by neurologists received care consistent with practice parameters more often than those not treated by a neurologist. Black, older, and disadvantaged beneficiaries received less care consistent with the practice parameters.
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.