ReviewCureus2022
Ethnical Disparities in Response to Edaravone in Patients With Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis.
Review in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Traditional Chinese botanical medicines and plant-derived bioactive compounds in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: mechanistic evidence, translational challenges, and therapeutic opportunities.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Evaluation of antioxidant and anti-inflammatory potential andJournal of enzyme inhibition and medicinal chemistry · 2025Article
- Synthesis, Characterization and Assessment of Antioxidant and Melanogenic Inhibitory Properties of Edaravone Derivatives.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- New developments and opportunities in drugs being trialed for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis from 2020 to 2022.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as motor neuron disease (MND), is a progressive neurodegenerative disease characterized by the weakness of voluntary muscles due to the loss of motor neurons. Symptoms ultimately culminate in the form of respiratory failure due to the involvement of the diaphragm. Unfortunately, there is no known cure for this disease. Hence, supportive therapy is the only available option in most terminal cases. However, Riluzole and Edaravone (EDA) are the only two known drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treating this condition. In 2017, EDA was approved for the treatment of ALS. It is hypothesized that Riluzole and EDA work via a mechanism involving antioxidants, which nullifies the oxidative stress believed to be involved in ALS. However, most studies in several countries have found a wide range of disparities in the efficacy of this drug. In this review, we aim to summarize the differences in results from epidemiological studies across 10 different countries and hypothesize the potential causes of these differences.
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.