4.6 Review

The changing picture of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: lessons from European registers

期刊

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jnnp-2016-314495

关键词

-

资金

  1. Health Research Board Clinician Scientist Programme
  2. Baxalta
  3. Prinses Beatrix Spierfonds
  4. Netherlands ALS Foundation
  5. European Community's Health Seventh Framework Programme [259867]
  6. Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (Vici Scheme, JPND (SOPHIA, STRENGTH, ALSCare))
  7. Health Research Board Interdisciplinary Capacity Enhancement Programme
  8. European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) under the Health Cooperation programme
  9. project EUROMOTOR [259867]
  10. European Joint Programme in Neurodegeneration (SOPHIA and ALS-CarE)
  11. Charities Research Motor Neuron and Irish Motor Neuron Disease Association
  12. ESRC [ES/L008238/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  13. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/L008238/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  14. Medical Research Council [MR/L501529/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  15. Motor Neurone Disease Association [AlChalabi-Talbot/Apr14/926-794] Funding Source: researchfish
  16. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0611-10084] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Prospective population based-registers of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) have operated in Europe for over two decades, and have provided important insights into our understanding of ALS. Here, we review the benefits that population registers have brought to the understanding of the incidence, prevalence, phenotype and genetics of ALS and outline the core operating principles that underlie these registers and facilitate international collaboration. Going forward, we offer lessons learned from our collective experience of operating population-based ALS registers in Europe for over two decades, focusing on register design, maintenance, identification and management of bias and the value of cross-national harmonisation and integration.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据