Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41573765›Full record

ArticleMultiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinical

Setting priorities for how future research in multiple sclerosis in Canada considers equity, diversity and inclusion: A modified e-Delphi study.

Ruth Ann Marrie, Afolasade Fakolade, Colleen J Maxwell, Dalia L Rotstein, Helen Tremlett, E Ann Yeh, Marcia Finlayson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Multiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinical. 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

7 authors.

Ruth Ann MarrieDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada; Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada; Department of Medicine, Nova Scotia Health Authority, Halifax, NS, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1855-5595
Afolasade FakoladeSchool of Rehabilitation Therapy, Queen's University, Kingston, ON,Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3405-5782
Colleen J MaxwellSchools of Pharmacy and Public Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
Dalia L RotsteinDepartment of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Department of Medicine, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Helen TremlettDepartment of Medicine (Neurology), University of British Columbia and Djavad Mowafaghian Centre for Brain Health, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5804-2535
E Ann YehDepartment of Paediatrics (Neurology), The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5393-7417
Marcia FinlaysonSchool of Rehabilitation Therapy, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1774-4810

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Research studies in multiple sclerosis (MS) lack diversity. Objective: To gain consensus on priorities about how future research in MS in Canada addresses equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) using a modified e-Delphi technique. Methods: We recruited people with lived experience (people with MS (PwMS) or family members); EDI researchers; and clinicians with experience caring for PwMS. The first survey was developed based on a scoping review, EDI literature, and advisory group meetings and included items for five domains: measuring and reporting diversity characteristics, recruiting diverse research populations, role of funders, role of publishers/editors, and training. All items were rated on a 7-point scale with anchors of 1 (aspirational), 4 (achievable), and 7 (core). We undertook three rounds. New items were added after the first round; consensus was defined as a standard deviation ≤1.0. Results: Ultimately, 87 people (36 with lived experience, 28 EDI researchers, 23 MS clinicians) completed the first survey, of whom 82 (94.2%) completed the second survey and 81 (93.1%) completed the third. Forty-five items reached consensus across the five domains. Nearly all these items were rated as achievable. Conclusions: This e-Delphi identified priorities for how future MS research in Canada addresses EDI.

Indexed as

CanadaconsensusDelphidiversityequityinclusionmultiple sclerosis

Identifiers

PMID41573765
PMCPMC12820007

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.