Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33694050›Full record

SynthesisJournal of neurology2021

Prognostic models for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a systematic review.

Lu Xu, Bingjie He, Yunjing Zhang, Lu Chen, Dongsheng Fan, Siyan Zhan, Shengfeng Wang

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of neurology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. A neuromuscular clinician's primer on machine learning.Journal of neuromuscular diseases · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Prognostic communication in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: findings from a Nationwide Italian survey.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2024
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Role of brain 2-[European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Lu Xu *Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Peking University, 38 Xueyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100191, China.
Bingjie He *Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Peking University, 38 Xueyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100191, China.
Yunjing ZhangDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Peking University, 38 Xueyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100191, China.
Lu ChenDepartment of Neurology, Peking University Third Hospital, 49 Huayuan North Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100191, China.
Dongsheng FanDepartment of Neurology, Peking University Third Hospital, 49 Huayuan North Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100191, China.
Siyan ZhanDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Peking University, 38 Xueyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100191, China. siyan-zhan@bjmu.edu.cn.
Shengfeng WangDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Peking University, 38 Xueyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100191, China. shengfeng1984@126.com.

Funding

National Key Research and Development Program of China 2018YFC1311704National Natural Science Foundation of China 81973146National Natural Science Foundation of China 91646107National research program for key issues in air pollution control DQGG0404
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncreasing prognostic models for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) have been developed. However, no comprehensive evaluation of these models has been done. The purpose of this study was to map the prognostic models for ALS to assess their potential contribution and suggest future improvements on modeling strategy.

methodsDatabases including Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane library were searched from inception to 20 February 2021. All studies developing and/or validating prognostic models for ALS were selected. Information regarding modelling method and methodological quality was extracted.

resultsA total of 28 studies describing the development of 34 models and the external validation of 19 models were included. The outcomes concerned were ALS progression (n = 12; 35%), change in weight (n = 1; 3%), respiratory insufficiency (n = 2; 6%), and survival (n = 19; 56%). Among the models predicting ALS progression or survival, the most frequently used predictors were age, ALS Functional Rating Scale/ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised, site of onset, and disease duration. The modelling method adopted most was machine learning (n = 16; 47%). Most of the models (n = 25; 74%) were not presented. Discrimination and calibration were assessed in 12 (35%) and 2 (6%) models, respectively. Only one model by Westeneng et al. (Lancet Neurol 17:423-433, 2018) was assessed with overall low risk of bias and it performed well in both discrimination and calibration, suggesting a relatively reliable model for practice.

conclusionsThis study systematically reviewed the prognostic models for ALS. Their usefulness is questionable due to several methodological pitfalls and the lack of external validation done by fully independent researchers. Future research should pay more attention to the addition of novel promising predictors, external validation, and head-to-head comparisons of existing models.

Indexed as

Amyotrophic Lateral SclerosisRespiratory InsufficiencyBiasHumansMachine LearningPrognosisAmyotrophic lateral sclerosisMotor neuron diseaseNeurodegenerative diseasesPrognostic modelSystematic review

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.