ArticleBMJ open2024
Living systematic review and comprehensive network meta-analysis of ALS clinical trials: study protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Management of Cramping Pain in Patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis.European neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Attrition and discontinuation in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis clinical trials: a meta-analysis.Journal of neurology · 2024Pooled it
- Heterogeneity in the Analysis of the ALSFRS-R in ALS Clinical Trials and its Effect on the Validity and Precision of Trial Conclusions.Neurology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAmyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a fatal neurogenerative disease with no effective treatment to date. Despite numerous clinical trials, the majority of studies have been futile in their effort to significantly alter the course of the disease. However, these studies may still provide valuable information for identifying patient subgroups and generating new hypotheses for future research. Additionally, synthesising evidence from these studies may help overcome the limitations of individual studies. Network meta-analysis may refine the assessment of efficacy in specific patient subgroups, evaluate intervention characteristics such as mode of administration or biological mechanisms of action, and rank order promising therapeutic areas of interest. Therefore, we aim to synthesise the available evidence from ALS clinical trials. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review to identify all clinical trials that assessed disease-modifying pharmaceutical therapies, cell therapies, or supplements in patients with ALS. Outcomes of interest are clinical disease progression outcomes and survival. We will conduct this search in the period Q4 2024 in three databases: PubMed, Embase and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies from 1999 to 2023. Individual patient data and aggregate data will be collected and subsequentially synthesised in meta-analytical models. The final model will be presented as an open-source web application with biannual updates of the underlying data, thereby providing a 'living' overview of the ALS clinical trial landscape. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethics approvals are required. Findings will be presented at relevant conferences and submitted to peer-reviewed journals. Data will be stored anonymously in secure repositories.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.