Cited by 34Multiple Sclerosis Research StudiesHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeCancer survivorship and care

Redefining functionality and treatment efficacy in multiple sclerosis

Foley, John F., Brandes, David W.·2009·Neurology

Abstract

Although our understanding of multiple sclerosis (MS) has grown exponentially in the past century and a half, there is still some divergence between physicians' perceptions of effects of MS on patients and those of the patients themselves. This article examines current practices in MS assessment and clinical trial design, highlighting certain deficiencies associated with commonly used measurement techniques (e.g., the Expanded Disability Status Scale and MRI) that are reflective of these discrepancies. In particular, the authors note that there is only minimal clinical awareness of the effects of MS on patient quality of life (QoL). We posit that QoL elements including impaired cognition, fatigue, pain, a variety of visual disturbances, depression, and degrading social function may have at least as much impact on people with MS as ambulatory issues. And because QoL measures often do not correlate with Expanded Disability Status Scale or MRI findings, we recommend that QoL be assessed independently. Various validated measures do exist to assess QoL elements, which are outlined here, along with thoughts on how to incorporate these into regular patient management visits. Ultimately, we believe that expanding on the traditionally accepted definitions of "functionality" and "efficacy" will allow for the adoption of a more holistic picture of MS and its impact.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1212/wnl.0b013e3181a99bc2

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 63 · Cited by 34

Authors
Foley, J. F., & Brandes, D. W.
Affiliations
From the Rocky Mountain Neurological Associates (J.F.F.), Salt Lake City, UT; and Hope MS Center (D.W.B.), Knoxville, TN.
Venue
Neurology
Published
2009-06-09
Volume
72
Issue
23_supplement_5
Pages
S1-11
ISSN
  • 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-632X
OpenAlex
W2158717253
Cited by
34
References
63
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neurology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
Keywords
multiple sclerosis, quality of life, Expanded Disability Status Scale, magnetic resonance imaging, disability assessment, clinical trial design, fatigue, cognitive impairment, depression, visual disturbances, social function, patient-reported outcomes, treatment efficacy
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Cognition Disorders, Depression, Disability Evaluation, Fatigue, Humans, Multiple Sclerosis, Pain, Quality of Life, Severity of Illness Index, Vision Disorders, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review