ArticleCerebellum (London, England)2025
Selection of Clinical Outcome Assessments for Trial Readiness in ARSACS - 2-year Progression and Responsiveness to Change Part 2: Mobility, Balance, and Lower Limb Coordination.
Article in Cerebellum (London, England), 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Autosomal recessive spastic ataxia of Charlevoix-Saguenay (ARSACS) is among the most prevalent types of recessive ataxia worldwide. Given the accelerated therapeutic advances for many ataxias, there is a need to improve trial readiness. This study aimed to document the progression of balance, lower limb coordination and mobility in adults with ARSACS according to their mobility stage (walker or not) over the trial-relevant time frame of two years, and responsiveness to change of related clinical outcome assessments (COAs). Sixty participants from two neuromuscular clinics (Saguenay and Québec City, Canada) were included. The COAs were the Lower Extremity Motor Coordination Test (LEMOCOT), Co-contraction index, 30-s Chair Stand test (30 s-CST), Timed Up & Go test (TUG), 10-Meter Walk Test (10mWT), Berg Balance Scale (BBS), and Activities-specific Balance Confidence-simplified (ABC-S) scale. Responsiveness was documented using an anchor-based method with self-perception of the progression of related COA outcomes in the previous year. A significant progression above the standard error of measurement was observed for the TUG (+ 7.8 s [24% compared with baseline]), 10mWT (-0.111 to-0.165 m/s [-17 to -20%]), BBS (-4.3 points [-24%]), and ABC-S (-4.3 points [-15%]), with some differences between mobility stages; participants using a walking aid or wheelchair showed greater progression. The TUG, 10mWT, and BBS were the most sensitive to change in COAs, detecting changes specifically in participants who reported getting worse. These results are pivotal for defining inclusion criteria and selecting COAs for future clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40332679What 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.