Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39766450›Full record

ReviewBrain sciences2024

Neurophysiologic Innovations in ALS: Enhancing Diagnosis, Monitoring, and Treatment Evaluation.

Ryan Donaghy, Erik P Pioro

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Brain sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
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

2 authors.

Ryan DonaghyDepartment of Neurology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL 60611, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3487-506X
Erik P PioroDjavad Mowafaghian Centre for Brain Health, Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0737-6065

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a progressive disease of both upper motor neurons (UMNs) and lower motor neurons (LMNs) leading invariably to decline in motor function. The clinical exam is foundational to the diagnosis of the disease, and ordinal severity scales are used to track its progression. However, the lack of objective biomarkers of disease classification and progression delay clinical trial enrollment, muddle inclusion criteria, and limit accurate assessment of drug efficacy. Ultimately, biomarker evidence of therapeutic target engagement will support, and perhaps supplant, more traditional clinical trial outcome measures. Electrophysiology tools including nerve conduction study and electromyography (EMG) have already been established as diagnostic biomarkers of LMN degeneration in ALS. Additional understanding of the motor manifestations of disease is provided by motor unit number estimation, electrical impedance myography, and single-fiber EMG techniques. Dysfunction of UMN and non-motor brain areas is being increasingly assessed with transcranial magnetic stimulation, high-density electroencephalography, and magnetoencephalography; less common autonomic and sensory nervous system dysfunction in ALS can also be characterized. Although most of these techniques are used to explore the underlying disease mechanisms of ALS in research settings, they have the potential on a broader scale to noninvasively identify disease subtypes, predict progression rates, and assess physiologic engagement of experimental therapies.

Indexed as

amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)biomarkerclinical trialmotor unit number estimation (MUNE)transcranial magnetic stimulation

Identifiers

PMID39766450
PMCPMC11674262

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.