ArticleHeliyon2025
Comparison of specialist ataxia centres with non-specialist services in terms of care access and organisation, health services resource utilisation and costs in Germany using patient-reported data.
Article in Heliyon, 2025. 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.
- Ataxia patient care pathway and associated healthcare costs in Italy: a cross-sectional survey.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Article
- Patient-reported, psychosocial and health economic outcomes in mild to moderate Friedreich's ataxia: baseline results of the PROFA study.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Article
- Friedreich's ataxia patient pathway in Europe.Frontiers in health services · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The ataxias are rare complex neurological disorders challenging to diagnose and manage. We explored the patient pathways, health care use and costs of individuals attending a specialist ataxia centre (SAC) compared with non-specialist settings in Germany. Methods: We distributed a survey to people with ataxia to gather information about diagnosis and management of the ataxias, utilisation of health care services, and patients' satisfaction in both SAC and non-specialist settings. We compared mean resource use and health service costs per patient, stratifying by whether patients attended a SAC or not. Results: We collected and analysed responses from 101 participants. For patients who visited both a SAC and a standard neurology clinic, 67.2 % reported that the care received at a SAC was better. Positive feedback about SAC services included understanding their condition (66.7 % positive feedback), giving practical advice to manage better their ataxia (66.7 % positive feedback) and offering opportunities to take part in research (79.2 % positive feedback). Costs were not significantly different between those attending a SAC and those who did not, although the average cost per patient per year found in SACs was higher compared with non-SACs. The mean total cost per patient over a one-year period was €2091 for non-SAC patients and €4043 for SAC patients (P = 0.19 in adjusted analyses). We identified barriers in accessing SACs including the lack of clear referral pathway and the travel required to such centres. We made recommendations about gaps identified in the care provided based on people's experience and feedback. Conclusions: This study provides useful information about ataxia patient care pathways in Germany, with higher patients' satisfaction in SAC compared to non-SAC, without a significant difference in costs. The findings can be used to change policy for better care for people with these rare complex neurological diseases.
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.