Cited by 362Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis ResearchPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug ReactionsStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Accelerated clinical discovery using self-reported patient data collected online and a patient-matching algorithm

Wicks, Paul, Vaughan, Timothy E, Massagli, Michael P, Heywood, James·2011·Nature Biotechnology

Abstract

Patients with serious diseases may experiment with drugs that have not received regulatory approval. Online patient communities structured around quantitative outcome data have the potential to provide an observational environment to monitor such drug usage and its consequences. Here we describe an analysis of data reported on the website PatientsLikeMe by patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) who experimented with lithium carbonate treatment. To reduce potential bias owing to lack of randomization, we developed an algorithm to match 149 treated patients to multiple controls (447 total) based on the progression of their disease course. At 12 months after treatment, we found no effect of lithium on disease progression. Although observational studies using unblinded data are not a substitute for double-blind randomized control trials, this study reached the same conclusion as subsequent randomized trials, suggesting that data reported by patients over the internet may be useful for accelerating clinical discovery and evaluating the effectiveness of drugs already in use.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nbt.1837

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Researchers using observational data from a patient platform found that lithium therapy had no impact on amyotrophic lateral sclerosis disease progression, a result later confirmed by randomized trials.

    “For example, researchers using observational data housed on such a platform found that lithium therapy had no impact on amyotrophic lateral sclerosis disease progression, later confirmed by subsequent randomized trials.13”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wicks, P., Vaughan, T. E., Massagli, M. P., & Heywood, J.
Affiliations
PatientsLikeMe (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Wicks, Paul
Venue
Nature Biotechnology
Published
2011-04-24
Volume
29
Issue
5
Pages
411-414
ISSN
  • 0733-222X (ISSN-L)
  • 1087-0156
  • 1546-1696
OpenAlex
W2163560143
Cited by
362
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 46 · 2014: 51 · 2013: 37 · 2012: 33
FWCI
26.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature Biotechnology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, lithium carbonate, off-label drug use, patient-reported outcomes, online patient communities, PatientsLikeMe, disease progression, drug efficacy
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Risk Factors, Case-Control Studies, Lithium Carbonate, Treatment Outcome, Sex Distribution, Riluzole, Internet, Self Report

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