ArticleJournal of neuromuscular diseases2025
Thinking outside the box: A re-evaluation of Canadian recommended outcome measures in adult spinal muscular atrophy - report of a national consensus workshop.
Article in Journal of neuromuscular diseases, 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.
- A Psychometric Evaluation of Maximum Phonation Time and S/Z Ratio as Pragmatic Outcome Measures of Bulbar Function in Adults With Spinal Muscular Atrophy.Muscle & nerve · 2026Observational
- Could an outcome-based agreement be operationalized using real-world data from the Canadian Neuromuscular Disease Registry? Perspectives from an expert-led assessment in spinal muscular atrophy.Therapeutic advances in rare diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundDisease-modifying therapies for persons with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) has led to greater need and demand for relevant outcomes assessments. Such tools help monitor disease progression, assess treatment response, and inform clinical management. Canadian SMA clinicians participated in a Delphi process to achieve a 2021 national consensus on recommended outcomes, recognizing future reassessment would be essential given the evolving field and gaps in patient-reported and bulbar measures.ObjectiveDerive updated Canadian consensus of recommended outcome measures for adults with SMA.MethodsA national consensus workshop was held with SMA clinicians, patient/family representatives, research leaders, national registry and advocacy organizations. Clinics and registry experience and data were presented and discussed, utility of current and additional outcomes reviewed. Long and short lists of measures were generated, with voting to derive consensus.ResultsPractical implementation, value of data, and relevance to persons with SMA were key considerations. Consensus was achieved to 'think outside the box', recognizing a spectrum of function and need to choose the right outcome measure for the right patient at the right time. Measures with greater acceptance for adults were selected, and bulbar measures introduced. Eight outcome measures are recommended; 4 motor, 2 respiratory and 2 patient reported domains, with use based on the individuals level of function. The Revised Upper Limb Module was deemed to have broadest applicability except in the strongest and weakest adults. Additional measures are included as optional and exploratory.ConclusionsEmploying measures meaningful for clinicians, researchers, and persons living with SMA is essential to ensuring quality data collection and an engaged patient-centred clinical team. Clinicians should select measures based on the person's functional ability and goals. Building a national community of practice to support clinical and research practice, including standardized outcome measure training, will be a key next step in dissemination and advocacy.
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.