Redefining functionality and treatment efficacy in multiple sclerosis
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Among individuals with multiple sclerosis, health-related quality of life is often substantially impaired.
“many patients with MS have substantially impaired health-related quality of life (HRQOL), depression, fatigue, and anxiety.2”
From MS quality of life, depression, and fatigue improve after mindfulness training: A randomized trial (2010) · cites this paper as [2]
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