Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,233

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Controlled Trial of Riluzole in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis

Bensimon, G., Lacomblez, L., Meininger, V.·1994·New England Journal of Medicine
DOI 10.1056/nejm199403033300901
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis is a progressive motor neuron disease for which there is no adequate treatment. Some research suggests that the excitatory amino acid neurotransmitter glutamate may be involved in the pathogenesis. METHODS: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the antiglutamate agent riluzole, we conducted a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 155 outpatients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. The dose of riluzole was 100 mg per day. Randomization was stratified according to the site of disease onset (the bulbar region or the limbs). The primary end points were survival and rates of change in functional status. The main secondary end point was change in muscle strength. Analyses were undertaken after 12 months of treatment and at the end of the placebo-controlled period (median follow-up, 573 days). RESULTS: After 12 months, 45 of 78 patients (58 percent) in the placebo group were still alive, as compared with 57 of 77 patients (74 percent) in the riluzole group (P = 0.014). For patients with bulbar-onset disease, one-year survival rates were 35 percent (6 of 17) with placebo and 73 percent (11 of 15) with riluzole (P = 0.014), whereas for those with limb-onset disease one-year survival was 64 percent and 74 percent, respectively (P = 0.17). The survival advantage with riluzole was smaller (37 percent [29 of 78] with placebo vs. 49 percent [38 of 77] with riluzole) at the end of the placebo-controlled period, but it remained significant in the overall population (P = 0.046) as well as in the patients with bulbar-onset disease (18 percent [3 of 17] vs. 53 percent [8 of 15], P = 0.013). The deterioration of muscle strength was significantly slower in the riluzole group than in the placebo group (P = 0.028). Adverse reactions to riluzole included asthenia, spasticity, and mild elevations in aminotransferase levels. Twenty-seven patients in the riluzole group withdrew from the study, as compared with 17 in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: The antiglutamate agent riluzole appears to slow the progression of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and it may improve survival in patients with disease of bulbar onset.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejm199403033300901

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Bensimon, G., Lacomblez, L., & Meininger, V.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Publisher
Massachusetts Medical Society
Published
1994-03-03
Volume
330
Issue
9
Pages
585-591
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
DOI
10.1056/nejm199403033300901
OpenAlex
W2314689571
Cited by
2,233
References
1
FWCI
45.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.