ArticleRare (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2025
Insights from multidisciplinary rare disease visits: Findings from wrap-up documents and participant surveys in a national diagnostic study.
Article in Rare (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: This study is part of the Undiagnosed Diseases Network (UDN). The UDN is designed to improve diagnostic evaluation for patients who have defied diagnosis as well as to identify the underlying mechanism of disease. We explored recommendations made as part of the UDN evaluation, the number and type of specialists involved in that evaluation, and factors related to changes in care following the UDN visit. We used two datasets: visit wrap-up documents and post-evaluation surveys. We created distinct statistical models for each dataset to further understand the patient experience after a multidisciplinary rare disease visit. Results: Across datasets, the most common primary symptom category was neurology. The mean number of evaluations per participant was 3.8 with the most common being Genetics. The mean number of recommendations per participant was 4.9; 81.5 % had ≥ 1 recommendation. The most common recommendation was referral to a medical provider. Having a diagnosis within 3 months of the UDN visit was associated with more evaluations, but fewer recommendations. Conclusion: UDN visits typically involve evaluations by multiple specialists, potentially resulting in recommendations for downstream care. In the survey sample, over half the participants cited their intention to follow the recommendations made. Maximizing communication about ongoing care management following the UDN visit may also optimize care. Future research can explore how and why such characteristics matter.
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.