ArticleBrain and behavior2024
Consensus-Based Guidelines for Communicating a Misdiagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis to Reduce Psychological Distress.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy Diagnosis and Its Differentiation from Neurological Mimics, MS and ALS: A Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultiple sclerosis (MS) misdiagnosis is common, and when discovered, frequently leads to substantial disruption to patients' lives and anxiety for clinicians. Our objective was to develop expert consensus-based guidelines about how to communicate a misdiagnosis of MS to a patient, to reduce the potential for both psychological distress and litigation.
methodsA modified Delphi method using a systematic literature review on doctor and patient experiences of the MS diagnosis communication was used to populate items for a first-round questionnaire. Our Delphi panel represented three perspectives (clinicians, people with MS, and published experts in health communication), and we recruited 18 panelists in total (6 per perspective). Consensus was defined a priori as 75% of panelists giving an item the same rating. A feedback round was undertaken with six external reviewers, naïve to the guideline development process, and the panelists. Items were reviewed by the study team and synthesized to create the finalized guidelines.
resultsConsensus was reached for 45 items rated as "very important" and presented in the feedback round. The study team synthesized the 45 items to 27 items. Ten items related specifically to the communication of the MS misdiagnosis and 17 items to generic guidelines highlighted as important in the MS misdiagnosis appointment. Seven recommendations form the guidelines presented here.
conclusionsSeven consensus-based recommendations offer guidance to practising neurologists in their communication with patients in a situation that has the potential to be highly distressing, for both clinician and patient.
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.