SynthesisAnnals of clinical and translational neurology2026
Effectiveness and Safety of Nusinersen and Risdiplam in Spinal Muscular Atrophy: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Annals of clinical and translational neurology, 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.
- Motor function and safety of nusinersen for spinal muscular atrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis among Chinese patients.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Review
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
objectiveSpinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) is a rare genetic disorder marked by progressive muscle weakness and mobility loss. It has a profound physical, emotional and social impact on patients and caregivers, requiring comprehensive medical and supportive care. SMA is classified into Types 1-4, with some individuals identified presymptomatically. This systematic review examined the safety and effectiveness of nusinersen and risdiplam for treating SMA.
methodsWe searched research databases, relevant websites and existing systematic reviews. Screening, data extraction and quality assessment were conducted independently by two authors, with discrepancies resolved by a third. Internal quality appraisal ensured methodological rigour. A total of 131 studies reported in 148 sources were included. The review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024512226).
resultsBoth treatments showed improvements in motor function and milestones, with high survival rates across most SMA types. Motor function improvements were consistent, but other outcomes-such as bulbar and respiratory function, and ventilation needs-were variable. Adverse events were common across all treatments and SMA types, with some serious cases reported, including deaths in Types 1 and 2.
interpretationThis comprehensive review highlights the clinical effectiveness and safety of nusinersen and risdiplam across all SMA types. However, variability in outcomes and limited comparative data introduce uncertainty. The findings underscore the need for more high-quality randomised controlled trials to strengthen the evidence base for SMA treatment.
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.