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.
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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.