Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2026
Use of patient reported outcomes in multiple sclerosis clinical management: Scoping literature review.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kuharic Maja, Nowinski Cindy, Perschon Chelsea R, Miller Corinne H, Nasrulloeva Mohsharif, Hyde Robert, Kamudoni Paul, Penner Iris-Katharina, Sorensen Per S, Sastre-Garriga Jaume, Siva Aksel, Lebrun-Frenay Christine, White Angela, Weiland Helga, Zaratin Paola, Vermersch Patrick, Tourtelier-Girard Magaly, Edan Gilles, Cutter Gary, Hobart Jeremy, Cella David, McBurney Robert, or the PROs in MS Clinical Management Workgroup of the PROs for MS Initiative
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are collected in some multiple sclerosis (MS) care settings, yet their uses in MS clinical care are unclear.
OBJECTIVES: To determine how PROs are used in MS clinical care and gain insights into instruments, purposes, facilitators/barriers, and impact.
METHODS: Scoping review of studies reporting PRO use in MS clinical practice (January 2012-June 2025) across seven electronic databases.
RESULTS: Of 6797 records screened, 21 articles (10 countries; 43 instruments) met review criteria. Frequently assessed domains were health-related quality of life (48%), depression (43%), and fatigue (29%). Electronic collection predominated (57%), yet only 38% integrated PROs with electronic health records (EHRs). Purposes included program evaluation (33%), secondary analysis (24%), collection methods (19%), and quality improvement (14%). While 48% reported process or system-level changes, only 29% documented clinical actions triggered by PRO data. Facilitators included brief measures, delegation to non-physician staff, and EHR integration. Barriers included low physician review, lack of response protocols, and absent auditing.
CONCLUSIONS: Articles on PROs in MS care are sparse. No consistent uses and purposes were found. Advancing meaningful PRO use requires response protocols, actionable thresholds, clinician accountability, and routine auditing of PRO-guided decisions.
OBJECTIVES: To determine how PROs are used in MS clinical care and gain insights into instruments, purposes, facilitators/barriers, and impact.
METHODS: Scoping review of studies reporting PRO use in MS clinical practice (January 2012-June 2025) across seven electronic databases.
RESULTS: Of 6797 records screened, 21 articles (10 countries; 43 instruments) met review criteria. Frequently assessed domains were health-related quality of life (48%), depression (43%), and fatigue (29%). Electronic collection predominated (57%), yet only 38% integrated PROs with electronic health records (EHRs). Purposes included program evaluation (33%), secondary analysis (24%), collection methods (19%), and quality improvement (14%). While 48% reported process or system-level changes, only 29% documented clinical actions triggered by PRO data. Facilitators included brief measures, delegation to non-physician staff, and EHR integration. Barriers included low physician review, lack of response protocols, and absent auditing.
CONCLUSIONS: Articles on PROs in MS care are sparse. No consistent uses and purposes were found. Advancing meaningful PRO use requires response protocols, actionable thresholds, clinician accountability, and routine auditing of PRO-guided decisions.