Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41475891›Full record

ReviewAnnals of clinical and translational neurology2026

Applying an Ethical Lens to the Treatment of People With Multiple Sclerosis.

Methma Udawatta, Farrah J Mateen

Abstract readReviewCase Reports
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of clinical and translational neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Methma UdawattaMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5225-7006
Farrah J MateenKen and Ruth Davee Department of Neurology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4293-8115

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The practice of neurology requires an understanding of clinical ethics for decision-making. In multiple sclerosis (MS) care, there are a wide range of ethical considerations that may arise. These involve shared decision-making around selection of a disease-modifying therapy (DMT), risks and benefits of well-studied medications in comparison to supplements with limited information, allocation of resources and accessibility to MS care, and disparities in healthcare. We share a series of cases that illustrate ethical issues that may arise in the care of patients with MS. This narrative review articulates relevant ethical theories and frameworks that can be applied to common clinical scenarios in the current practice of MS.

Indexed as

Decision Making, SharedMultiple SclerosisAdultFemaleHumansMaleclinical decision makingdisease‐modifying therapyethicshealth disparitiesjusticemultiple sclerosis

Identifiers

PMID41475891
PMCPMC13071093

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.