ArticleBMJ open2025
Support needs and preferences for people with multiple sclerosis: a rapid review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPeople with multiple sclerosis (MS) live with a progressive condition that can result in complex disability support needs. Consequently, they may require specialised care and assistive technology to maintain independence at home. It is essential to develop an understanding of the support needs and preferences of people with MS to maintain independence and enhance their quality of life. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The principles of a systematic review framework are incorporated into our rapid review. As such, a reference group was recruited at the project's outset, shaping the research question and study design, followed by developing a thorough listing of search terms. We then adapted the methodology in line with recommendations for conducting a rapid review whereby only three databases were included: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and PsycINFO (Ovid). Data from qualitative and mixed-method studies will be extracted, coded and classified using content analysis. In addition to including peer-reviewed articles, we will examine grey literature sourced from MS-specific organisations and research centres. Grey literature content that has the potential to inform practice will be extracted and categorised. Collectively, themes will be identified from the analysed literature, with a subsequent evaluation conducted by our reference group. The inclusion criteria assert that all documentation must be published in English from 2010 onwards, specifically focusing on people with MS. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This rapid review does not require ethics approval. Findings will be circulated to our reference group and then published in peer-reviewed journals or presented at conferences.
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.