ArticleEuropean journal of neurology2025
Population-Based Versus Hospital-Based Data in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis-A Factor to Consider?
Article in European journal of neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOver the past years, some studies in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) have provided heterogeneous findings regarding demographic and clinical data as well as the impact of various prognostic factors. It is well known that these inconsistencies might be caused by a selection bias in hospital-based data sets. In this study, we sought to further characterize this selection bias.
methodsWe compared hospital-based data from the ALS center at Ulm University (UC; n = 3833; 1997-2021) with the population-based ALS registry Swabia (SR; n = 852; 2010-2020).
resultsPatients from UC were younger (age of onset 60.9 [IQR 52.4-68.9] vs. 65.0 [57.0-72.7]), had a higher share of males (60.5% vs. 56.3%), a longer diagnostic delay (10.5 [IQR 6.4-18.4] months vs. 6.9 [IQR 3.4-12.1] months), a higher prevalence of the "definite" category according to El Escorial diagnostic criteria (60.9% vs. 11.2%), a higher share of familial cases (12.9% vs. 6.3%), a slower progression rate (points of ALS functional rating scale revised lost per month -0.54 [IQR -1.02 to -0.28] vs. -0.79 [IQR -1.47 to -0.43]), and (among all deceased patients) a higher share of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (26.7% vs. 17.7%) and non-invasive ventilation (34.3% vs. 25.3%).
conclusionsThe observed differences likely indicate a selection bias in hospital-based data, which may be attributed, among others, to the willingness to travel large distances to a specialized center, the desire to participate in clinical studies, and the attitude toward life-prolonging measures. These differences must be considered when interpreting and generalizing study results from hospital-based populations.
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.