ArticleFrontiers in neurology
Global overview of multiple sclerosis care units: an international cross-sectional survey.
Article in Frontiers in neurology. 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Multiple sclerosis care units (MSCUs) are a reference model for multidisciplinary MS care, yet comparable global data on their structure, resources, and performance remain limited. Objective: To characterize the global landscape of MS centers and evaluate compliance with multidisciplinary standards using a simplified, scalable classification framework. Methods: An international cross-sectional survey (2020-2021) collected validated responses from 198 MS centres across 38 countries. Comparative analyses focused on 168 hospital-based centres. MSCUs were initially classified as type I or II based on fulfilment of ≥80% or 70-79% of 22 predefined structural and functional criteria. To enhance reproducibility, a complementary model was developed using 16 essential criteria, one point per fulfilled item; centres meeting ≥14 criteria qualified for classification. Additional thresholds for annual MS patient volume and neurologist staffing differentiated MSCU-I from MSCU-II. Analyses were stratified by region and institution type. Results: Academic centers reported higher workloads: mean annual treatments 1,359.6 vs. 779.3 ( Conclusion: We provide the broadest overview to date of MSCU structure and operations and propose a practical, reproducible 16-criterion classification framework. Regional context outweighs academic status in predicting MSCU adequacy. Because the dataset is driven predominantly by Europe and Latin America, extrapolation of these findings to under-represented regions, particularly North America and the Rest of the World, should be made with caution. The framework supports practical benchmarking, certification, and targeted capacity-building to reduce regional disparities in diagnostics, information systems, and access to high-efficacy therapies.
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.