ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2026
Clinical evaluation of communication brain computer interfaces in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a landscape analysis.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a progressive motor neuron disease that leads to severe motor impairment, including loss of communication ability, and ultimately death. Communication brain computer interfaces (cBCIs) have the potential to restore communication without reliance on motor function, thereby improving quality of life, independence, and palliative care. However, standardized methods to evaluate cBCI efficacy necessary for clinical implementation are not yet established. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review, semi structured interviews with key opinion leaders (KOLs), and a clinical assessment review panel to (1) identify clinical outcome assessments (COAs) relevant to cBCIs in ALS, (2) obtain expert feedback, and (3) synthesize the current clinical and scientific landscape. Results: A total of 21 COAs were identified as potentially relevant and may serve as a foundation for cBCI specific measures. However, no existing COA was found to comprehensively capture the clinical benefit or functional impact of cBCIs in ALS. Discussion: Current COAs are insufficient to evaluate cBCIs in ALS, highlighting a critical gap. Development of cBCI specific outcome measures is needed to support clinical validation, regulatory evaluation, and adoption.
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.