ArticleMuscle & nerve2026
Participation in U.S.-Based ALS Clinical Trials by Sex and Race.
Article in Muscle & nerve, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Participation in U.S.-Based ALS Clinical Trials by Sex and Race.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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/
aimsIn global amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) trials, women and men appear to be proportionately enrolled, but quantification of enrollment by sex and race in U.S.-based ALS trials is limited. The objective of this study was to evaluate the sex and race of participants enrolled in U.S.-based ALS clinical trials.
methodsParticipant demographics were extracted from recent U.S.-based Phase 2 and 3 ALS trials identified in literature and on ClinicalTrials.gov. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National ALS Registry and a 2014 State Surveillance Project were used as proxies for prevalence. Participation-to-prevalence (PPR) ratios were calculated for sex and race. A modified time-trend analysis was performed for race for participants enrolled before and after 2020.
resultsA total of 11 trials met criteria for inclusion with a total of 1153 patients enrolled. Compared to the CDC Registry, the PPR was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.63-0.90) for women, 1.26 (95% CI: 1.23-1.29) for White participants, 0.34 (95% CI: 0.17-0.51) for Black participants, and 0.35 (95% CI: 0.14-0.56) for all other races/multiracial. The modified time trend analysis showed no significant difference in the PPRs before and after 2020 (White: t = 1.44, p = 0.22; Black: t = -0.99, p = 0.37; Other races/multiracial: t = -1.50, p = 0.21). The comparison to the 2014 State Surveillance Project yielded similar findings. DISCUSSION: U.S.-based ALS trials significantly under-enroll non-White participants, and there are trends toward slight underrepresentation of women. Efforts to broaden trial enrollment amongst people with ALS will help with the generalizability of trial results and hasten trial completion.
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.