MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Treatment for cramps in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease

2012· review· en· W2117653409 on OpenAlexaff
Reto Baldinger, Hans Katzberg, Markus Weber

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmyotrophic lateral sclerosisMotor neuronMedicineDiseasePhysical medicine and rehabilitationNeurosciencePsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cramps are painful, involuntary muscle contractions. They commonly affect people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease (ALS/MND) at all stages of the disease. To date, the treatment of muscle cramps in ALS has been largely empirical without any evidence from randomised controlled trials. OBJECTIVES: To systematically assess the effect of interventions on muscle cramps as a primary or secondary endpoint or adverse event in people with ALS/MND. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register (14 February 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 1, 2011 in The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (January 1966 to January 2011) and EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2011) and reference lists of articles searched using the terms motor neuron disease, motor neurone disease, motoneuron disease or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. We contacted authors of trials for further information. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised and quasi-randomised trials of oral medications in people with ALS which assessed cramps as a primary or secondary outcome measure or as an adverse event. We also included trials using subcutaneous or intravenous medications or physical therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All authors applied the selection criteria and assessed study quality independently, and all authors performed independent data extraction. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty studies including 4789 participants were identified. Only one trial, of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), assessed cramps as the primary endpoint. Thirteen studies assessed cramps as a secondary endpoint. The medications comprised vitamin E, baclofen, riluzole, L-threonine, xaliproden, indinavir, and memantine. Six studies assessed cramps as an adverse event. The medications comprised creatine, gabapentin, dextromethorphan, quinidine, and lithium. In all 20 studies no favourable effect for the treatment of cramps in ALS/MND could be demonstrated, but many studies were underpowered to draw a definite conclusion. A meta-analysis of two small studies showed a statistically nonsignificant result for the amino acid L-threonine for the treatment of cramps in ALS/MND. No study was identified using physical therapy as a therapeutic intervention for cramps. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence to support the use of any intervention for muscle cramps in ALS/MND. More and larger randomised controlled trials evaluating treatments for muscle cramps in ALS/MND are needed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.288
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.134 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations66
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis ResearchFrench-language works237,207