ReviewFrontiers in genetics2021
Consensus Guidelines for Improving Quality of Assessment and Training for Neuromuscular Diseases.
Review in Frontiers in genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- What is known about muscle weakness, balance impairments and indoor mobility limitations in oculopharyngeal muscular dystrophy? A scoping review.Journal of neuromuscular diseases · 2026Article
- Barriers and levers to using an app for motor function assessment by therapists in hospitals: A qualitative study of the MFM-Play app.PloS one · 2026Article
- Designing and Implementing a Web-Based Platform for Accurate and Reliable Clinical Outcome Measures and Global Certification for Evaluating Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease.Journal of the peripheral nervous system : JPNS · 2025Article
- Validity and Reliability of Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Multisystem Proteinopathy 1.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2025Article
- Patients' Perceptions of Nusinersen Effects According to Their Responder Status.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Defining clinical endpoints in limb girdle muscular dystrophy: a GRASP-LGMD study.BMC neurology · 2024Article
- Defining Clinical Endpoints in Limb Girdle Muscular Dystrophy: A GRASP-LGMD study.Research square · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Critical components of successful evaluation of clinical outcome assessments (COAs) in multisite clinical trials and clinical practice are standardized training, administration, and documented reliability of scoring. Experiences of evaluators, alongside patient differences from regional standards of care, may contribute to heterogeneity in clinical center's expertise. Achieving low variability and high reliability of COA is fundamental to clinical research and to give confidence in our ability to draw rational, interpretable conclusions from the data collected. The objective of this manuscript is to provide a framework to guide the learning process for COAs for use in clinics and clinical trials to maximize reliability and validity of COAs in neuromuscular disease (NMD). This is a consensus-based guideline with contributions from fourteen leading experts in clinical outcomes and the field of clinical outcome training in NMD. This framework should guide reliable and valid assessments in NMD specialty clinics and clinical trials. This consensus aims to expedite study start up with a progressive training pathway ranging from research naïve to highly experienced clinical evaluators. This document includes recommendations for education guidelines and roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders in COA assessment and implementation to ensure quality and consistency of outcome administration across different settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.