SynthesisEuropean journal of neurology2026
Pharmacological Treatment of Cerebellar Ataxia in Pediatric Ataxia-Telangiectasia: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in European journal of neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pharmacological Treatment of Cerebellar Ataxia in Pediatric Ataxia-Telangiectasia: A Systematic Review.European journal of neurology · 2026Pooled it
- Letter to the Editor Regarding Panvino et al. "Pharmacological Treatment of Cerebellar Ataxia in Pediatric Ataxia-Telangiectasia: A Systematic Review".European journal of neurology · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAtaxia-telangiectasia (AT) is characterized by progressive cerebellar ataxia, oculomotor apraxia, immunodeficiency, and increased cancer susceptibility. No disease-modifying treatment is available. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for ataxia in pediatric AT.
methodA systematic search was conducted across MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov through December 2025. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and single-arm interventional studies evaluating pharmacological treatments for cerebellar ataxia in patients aged ≤ 18 years with genetically confirmed AT.
resultsThirteen studies (3 RCTs, 10 single-arm trials) involving 314 participants (mean age 10.87 years) were included. Interventions included betamethasone, erythrocyte-encapsulated dexamethasone (eDSP), nicotinamide riboside (NR), leucine derivatives, and amantadine. Betamethasone demonstrated transient improvements in the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA) and International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS) scores, with dose-dependent systemic toxicity. eDSP showed favorable tolerability but was ineffective in phase 3 trials, although subgroup analyses suggested a potential benefit in children aged 6-9 years. NR supplementation improved SARA and AT Neurological Examination Scale Toolkit (AT-NEST) scores in open-label studies. Leucine derivatives showed mixed results. Amantadine showed benefits in patients with extrapyramidal symptoms.
conclusionsThe recurrent pattern of promising open-label findings followed by negative phase 3 results highlights a translational gap attributable to methodological limitations, including small sample sizes, heterogeneous populations, and variable outcome measures. The non-linear disease progression and age-dependent treatment response further complicate trial design. Current evidence remains insufficient to guide clinical practice.
trial registrationPROSPERO number: CRD420251184721.
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.