ArticleNeurological research and practice2025
Shared prognostic information in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis - systematic assessment of the patients' perception of neurofilament light chain and the ALS functional rating scale.
Article in Neurological research and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- N-of-1 investigational study of a novel antisense oligonucleotide drug in CHCHD10-related ALS shows early signs of efficacy.Med (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Agreement Between the Harmonized and the Self-Explanatory Versions of the Revised ALS Functional Rating Scale in a Clinical Setting.Muscle & nerve · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), neurofilament light chain (NfL) was introduced as a prognostic biomarker. More recently, NfL values can be shared on the patient's ALS app. Also, the ALS functional rating scale (ALSFRS-R) is an established patient-reported assessment of disease progression. The scale can be obtained during clinic visits or remotely. However, few systematic data are available on the patients' perception of prognostic information about NfL and ALSFRS-R and the remote sharing of these data.
methodsIn a multicenter study, 149 ALS patients were assessed for their perception of shared information about NfL and ALSFRS-R using an investigator-designed survey and established questionnaires. The recommendation of NfL and ALSFRS-R to fellow patients was assessed using the Net Promoter Score (NPS). Burden by shared information was investigated in two distinct settings: (1) clinic information when receiving results on NfL and/or ALSFRS-R during clinic visits and (2) remote information about NfL values and self-rating of the ALSFRS-R via the ALS app. General anxiety was measured by the Fear of Progression Questionnaire - Short Form (FoP-Q-SF).
resultsInformation about NfL and ALSFRS-R, respectively (n = 149), were regarded as relevant for patients themselves (75.2% and 77.2%) and for research (98% and 96%). The NPS showed a high recommendation rate for NfL (+ 21) and ALSFRS-R (+ 26). Only a minority of patients perceived shared information about NfL as burdensome, with a lower burden in the clinic setting (n = 1, 4.2%) than in the remote setting (n = 8, 12%; p = 0.015). Remote digital assessment of the ALSFRS-R was well received, with a reported burden in 9.8% (n = 9) of the participants. The FoP-Q-SF revealed fear of progression in 40% of the respondents (n = 60).
conclusionsThis study underscored the relevance of information about NfL and ALSFRS-R from the patient's perspective. Furthermore, patients proved to appreciate the relevance of this data for ALS research. Sharing information about NfL or ALSFRS-R was rarely perceived as burdensome even in a remote setting using the ALS app. These findings pave the way for further development of the patient-centered approach to sharing prognostic information in 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.