ArticleTherapeutic advances in rare disease
Navigating the outcome maze: a scoping review of outcomes and instruments in clinical trials in genetic neurodevelopmental disorders and intellectual disability.
Article in Therapeutic advances in rare disease. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- What Matters Most? Developing a Core Patient Reported Outcome Set for Individuals With Genetic Intellectual Disabilities: An International Delphi Study.Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR · 2026Article
- Patient reported outcomes in pediatric physical therapy: a scoping review and evidence map.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Review
- Patient reported outcomes that matter to individuals with (genetic) intellectual disabilities: a qualitative study.Journal of neurodevelopmental disorders · 2025Article
- Establishing a core outcome set for creatine transporter deficiency and guanidinoacetate methyltransferase deficiency.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2025Article
- Patient reported outcomes used in clinical trials and core outcome sets for individuals with genetic intellectual disability: a scoping review.Journal of neurodevelopmental disorders · 2025Article
- Prioritisation of head, neck, and respiratory outcomes in mucopolysaccharidosis type II: lessons from a rare disease consensus exercise and comparison of parental and clinical priorities.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2025Article
- PROs for RARE: protocol for development of a core patient reported outcome set for individuals with genetic intellectual disability.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2024Article
- Individualized therapy development for rare diseases: individualized at every step of the way.Therapeutic advances in rare diseaseArticle
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
Abstract
Background: Individuals with genetic neurodevelopmental disorders (GNDs) or intellectual disability (ID) are often affected by complex neuropsychiatric comorbidities. Targeted treatments are increasingly available, but due to the heterogeneity of these patient populations, choosing a key outcome and corresponding outcome measurement instrument remains challenging. Objectives: The aim of this scoping review was to describe the research on outcomes and instruments used in clinical trials in GNDs and ID. Eligibility criteria: Clinical trials in individuals with GNDs and ID for any intervention over the past 10 years were included in the review. Sources of evidence: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched. Titles and abstracts were independently screened for eligibility with a subsample of 10% double-screening for interrater reliability. Data from full texts were independently reviewed. Discrepancies were discussed until consensus was reached. Charting methods: Information was recorded on patient populations, interventions, designs, outcomes, measurement instruments, and type of reporter when applicable. Qualitative and descriptive analyses were performed. Results: We included 312 studies reporting 91 different outcomes, with cognitive function most frequently measured (28%). Various outcome measurement instruments ( Conclusion: This scoping review of current practice reveals a myriad of outcomes and outcome measurement instruments for clinical trials in GNDs and ID. This complicates generalization, evidence synthesis, and evaluation. It underlines the need for consensus on suitability, validity, and relevancy of instruments, ultimately resulting in a core outcome set. A series of steps is proposed to move from the myriad of measures to a more unified approach.
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.