Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis care and research in the United States during the COVID ‐19 pandemic: Challenges and opportunities
Open accessAbstract
Coronavirus disease 2019 has created unprecedented challenges for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) clinical care and research in the United States. Traditional evaluations for making an ALS diagnosis, measuring progression, and planning interventions rely on in‐person visits that may now be unsafe or impossible. Evidence‐ and experience‐based treatment options, such as multidisciplinary team care, feeding tubes, wheelchairs, home health, and hospice, have become more difficult to obtain and in some places are unavailable. In addition, the pandemic has impacted ALS clinical trials by impairing the ability to obtain measurements for trial eligibility, to monitor safety and efficacy outcomes, and to dispense study drug, as these also often rely on in‐person visits. We review opportunities for overcoming some of these challenges through telemedicine and novel measurements. These can reoptimize ALS care and research in the current setting and during future events that may limit travel and face‐to‐face interactions.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Opportunities were considered and offered to overcome some problems through telemedicine and new measurements.
“Therefore, opportunities were considered and offered to overcome some of these problems through telemedicine [23] and new measurements [24–29].”
From Life Experiences in Neuromuscular Tracheotomized Patients in Times of Covid-19 (2023) · cites this paper as [24]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 29 · Cited by 57
- Authors
- Andrews, J. A., Berry, J. D., Baloh, R. H., Carberry, N., Cudkowicz, M. E., Dedi, B., Glass, J., Maragakis, N. J., Miller, T. M., Paganoni, S., Rothstein, J. D., Shefner, J. M., Simmons, Z., Weiss, M. D., & Bedlack, R. S.
- Affiliations
- Columbia University (US)
- Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
- Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (US)
- Emory University (US)
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- Washington University in St. Louis (US)
- Barrow Neurological Institute (US)
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- University of Washington (US)
- Duke University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bedlack, Richard S.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Muscle & Nerve
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-06-05
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 182-186
- ISSN
- 0148-639X (ISSN-L)
- 1097-4598
- PMC
- PMC7283687
- OpenAlex
- W3026281458
- Cited by
- 57
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 11
- FWCI
- 4.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Muscle & Nerve (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (1s10od020007-01a1)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › COVID-19 and healthcare impacts
- Keywords
- amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine, remote clinical assessment, multidisciplinary care, feeding tube, home health care, hospice care
- MeSH terms
- Betacoronavirus, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Clinical Trials as Topic, Enteral Nutrition, Health Services Accessibility, Home Care Services, Humans, Pneumonia, Viral, Ventilators, Mechanical, Spirometry, United States, Wheelchairs, Hospice Care, Telemedicine, Coronavirus Infections, Biomedical Research, Pandemics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review