SynthesisScientific reports2024
Efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions for individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized control trials.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Tofersen for SOD1 amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of pharmacological and biological therapies for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a network meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurologyPooled it
- Pan-Asian consortium for treatment and research in ALS (PACTALS) guidelines for management of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025Review
- Effects of Respiratory Training on Pulmonary Function, Cough, and Functional Independence in Patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis.Neurology international · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the efficacy of five non-pharmacological interventions, including exercise intervention (EI), nutritional intervention (NI), respiratory intervention (RI), psychological intervention (PSI), and integrated physical intervention (IPI), on functional status, quality of life, muscle strength, pulmonary function, and safety in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). We searched nine databases, PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, CNKI, CBM, WFPD, and CSTJ, for randomized controlled trials of ALS patients. The primary outcome was the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R) score. Secondary outcomes were the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire (McGill-QoL), Medical Research Council (MRC)-sum score, Forced Vital Capacity (FVC), and Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) score. This NMA was conducted using random-effect models to calculate the standard mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). All types of supplemental interventions had some benefit for patients with ALS. EI had a beneficial effect on the ALSFRS-R score (SMD: 1.01; 95% CI 0.50-1.51), FVC (SMD: 0.78; 95% CI 0.02-1.55), McGill-QoL (SMD: 0.71 95% CI 0.33-1.08), and MRC (SMD: 1.11; 95% CI 0.08-2.14). RI had a beneficial effect on the ALSFRS-R score (SMD: 0.83 95% CI 0.12-1.55). IPI had a beneficial effect on the ALSFRS-R score (SMD: 0.65 95% CI 0.06-1.24). NI had a beneficial effect on the McGill-QoL (SMD: 0.63 95% CI 0.02-1.23). The current study findings support a multimodal intervention strategy with an emphasis on EI for slowing disease progression in patients with ALS.
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.