ArticleNeurological research and practice2024
MS brain health quality standards: a survey on the reality in clinical practice in Germany.
Article in Neurological research and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Telemedical communication patterns in myasthenia gravis in a remote monitoring study.Neurological research and practice · 2026Article
- Delivering high-quality multiple sclerosis care in Germany: challenges and regional models.Neurological research and practice · 2026Review
- Unmet needs in the care of patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder and myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody associated disease: insights from Germany.Neurological research and practice · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe quality of treatment is especially critical in the context of complex and chronic diseases such as multiple sclerosis (MS). The Brain Health Initiative, an independent international consortium of neurologists, reached a consensus on time-based quality standards prioritizing brain health-focused care for people with MS.
objectivesTo gain deeper insights into the transferability of these quality standards to a specific area, we conducted a survey among MS experts across various MS centers in Germany.
methodsParticipants were asked about time frames considered high standards and those currently being implemented in daily routine based on their experience.
resultsThe results reveal a large gap between ideal conceptions and their adaptation in the real world, mostly due to a lack of resources.
conclusionsNevertheless, these guidelines and recommendations can be aspired to as ideals. Consensual and inclusive clinical pathways complemented by measurable quality indicators are needed to improve care and approach these ideals. Neither exists in the current management of MS.
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.