ArticleMuscle & nerve2025
Strengths and Opportunities: Clinicians' Perspectives on Palliative Care for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) in the United States.
Article in Muscle & nerve, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Embedding Palliative Care Clinicians in ALS Teams Improves ALS Clinicians' Confidence in Their Patient Management and Satisfaction With Palliative Care.Muscle & nerve · 2026Article
- Between guidelines and reality: expert neurologists' perspectives on structural resources for ALS care in Germany.Neurological research and practice · 2026Article
- Mapping end-of-life care for patients with neurological conditions in German hospices: a point prevalence survey.BMJ neurology open · 2026Article
- Integrating Neurology, Palliative Care and Emergency Services in ALS: A Community-Integrated Neuropalliative Pathway in Modena, Italy.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Strengths and Opportunities: Clinicians' Perspectives on Palliative Care for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) in the United States.Muscle & nerve · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/
aimsLittle is known about the state of palliative care (PC) for people with ALS (pALS) in the U.S. We aimed to examine current practice regarding PC for pALS and how it can be improved.
methodsALS and PC clinicians completed surveys about: (1) strengths and limitations of PC for pALS provided by ALS and PC teams, (2) reasons for and barriers to referring to specialty PC, and (3) how PC could be improved.
resultsOne hundred forty-one ALS clinicians from 72 institutions and 242 PC clinicians from 96 institutions in 30 states completed surveys. Half of ALS clinicians reported they are able to manage patients' pain (55%) and mood symptoms (52%) "very well." Fewer reported managing care partner needs (43%) and spiritual/existential distress (29%) "very well." Fifty-eight percent of pALS are referred to outpatient PC and 69% to hospice at some point in the illness. Barriers to referring include that PC programs are not sufficiently available to pALS. ALS clinicians generally felt satisfied with PC teams' care, but PC clinicians were less confident managing motor symptoms (51% confident) and helping care partners understand how to provide care (51%) and use equipment (25%). Most clinicians felt the quality of PC provided by ALS (77%) and PC (90%) teams is good/excellent. However, qualitative comments highlighted that both ALS and PC clinicians have knowledge gaps, and collaboration between ALS and PC clinicians should increase. DISCUSSION: Clinician education, expansion of PC services, strengthened collaboration, and further research about PC for pALS are needed.
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.