MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Treatment for spasticity in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease

2006· reference-entry· en· W4246352631 on OpenAlexaff
Nigel Ashworth, L E Satkunam, Dan Deforge

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2006
Typereference-entry
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaGlenrose Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpasticityAmyotrophic lateral sclerosisPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialQuality of life (healthcare)Physical medicine and rehabilitationNeuromuscular diseaseDiseaseSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Spasticity commonly affects patients with motor neuron disease. It is likely to contribute to worsening muscle dysfunction, increased difficulty with activities of daily living and deteriorating quality of life. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to systematically review treatments for spasticity in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as motor neuron disease. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group trials register (January 2003 and January 2005), MEDLINE (January 1966 to February 2005), EMBASE (January 1980 to February 2005), CINAHL (January 1982 to February 2005), AMED (January 1985 to February 2005) and LILACS (January 1982 to January 2003). We reviewed the bibliographies of the randomized controlled trials identified, and contacted authors and experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included quasi-randomized or randomized controlled trials of participants with probable or definite amyotrophic lateral sclerosis according to the El Escorial diagnostic criteria (or a revised version) or the Airlie House revision. We would have included trials of physical therapy, modalities, prescription medications, non-prescription medications, chemical neurolysis, surgical interventions, and alternative therapies. Our primary outcome measure was reduction in spasticity at three months or greater as measured by the Ashworth (or modified Ashworth) spasticity scale. Our secondary outcome measures were: validated measures based on history, physical examination, physiological measures, measures of function, measures of quality of life, serious adverse events, and measures of cost. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We identified only one randomized controlled trial that met our inclusion criteria. Two authors extracted the data. We also contacted the author of the paper and obtained information not available in the published article. MAIN RESULTS: The included study was a trial of moderate intensity, endurance type exercise versus 'usual activities' in 25 patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. At three months patients performing the 15 minute twice daily exercises had significantly less spasticity overall (mean reduction of -0.43, 95% CI -1.03 to +0.17 in the treatment group versus an increase of +0.25, 95% CI -0.46 to +0.96 in control) but the mean change between groups was not significant (-0.68, 95% CI -1.62 to +0.26), as measured by the Ashworth scale. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The single trial performed was too small to determine whether individualised moderate intensity endurance type exercises for the trunk and limbs are beneficial or harmful. No other medical, surgical or alternative treatment and therapy has been evaluated in a randomized fashion in this patient population. More research is 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations15
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207