ArticleJournal of neurology2024
Unveiling preferences in multiple sclerosis care: insights from an Italian discrete-choice experiment with patients and healthcare professionals.
Article in Journal of neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Subcutaneous Ocrelizumab for the Treatment of Relapsing Forms of Multiple Sclerosis: A Budget Impact Model.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2026Article
- Patient‑Reported Satisfaction in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: Advantages of At‑Home Self‑Administered Subcutaneous Ofatumumab Versus Other High‑Efficacy Therapies.Drugs - real world outcomes · 2026Article
- Personalizing Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis Monitoring: Patient Acceptance of Serum Neurofilament Light Chain and the Role of Disease Knowledge.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Threatening illness perception and associated factors in early-stage relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic, inflammatory, demyelinating, neurodegenerative disease of the central nervous system, significantly impacting patients' quality of life. Understanding patient and healthcare professional (HCP) preferences for MS treatments is crucial for optimizing therapeutic strategies and improving adherence and outcomes. This Discrete-Choice Experiment (DCE) assesses preferences for various MS treatment attributes among Italian patients and HCPs. The sample included 1069 patients and 186 HCPs. Key attributes evaluated were treatment administration route, frequency, location, and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs), such as cognitive impairment, fatigue, and mobility. Data were collected through questionnaires and responses were analyzed to determine the relative importance (RI) and utility of each attribute. Both patients and HCPs highly prioritized PROMs, with cognitive impairments and walking ability being the most critical factors. Patients showed a strong preference for oral administration and treatments administered biannually at home, whereas HCPs preferred hospital-based treatments. The "Time to Progression" attribute was more significant for HCPs than for patients, reflecting different priorities between the groups. The study highlighted the importance of treatment convenience, with patients favoring less-frequent administration schedules and home-based treatment options. This study underscores the necessity of incorporating both patient and HCP perspectives into MS treatment planning. Shared decision-making, which considers individual preferences, can enhance treatment adherence and outcomes. These insights into treatment preferences provide valuable guidance for personalized MS care, aiming to improve patient quality of life and optimize therapeutic efficacy.
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.