Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Oculomotor dysfunction in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a comprehensive review
Sharma R, Hicks S, Berna CM, Kennard C, Talbot K, Turner MR.. Archives of neurology, 2011-07-01
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
Although traditionally regarded as spared, a range of oculomotor dysfunction has been recorded in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Most frequent is ophthalmoparesis, particularly in patients with prolonged survival; however, pursuit, nystagmus, and saccadic impairments have also been reported. The apparent resistance to pathologic involvement of oculomotor (and sphincter) control pathways in most patients with ALS has prompted comparative study to establish the key pathways that underlie motor neuronal vulnerability, with the hope of generating novel therapeutic strategies. Developments in the assessment of oculomotor function, including portable eye-tracking devices, have revealed more subtle impairments in ALS in relation to phenotype, which can now be better understood through parallel elucidation of the normal cerebral oculomotor control network. Given the clinicopathologic overlap between ALS and some types of frontotemporal dementia, the study of oculomotor function has particular value in probing the variable but consistent cognitive impairment seen in ALS and that reflects frontotemporal extramotor cerebral abnormalities. By transcending the requirement to write or speak, loss of which precludes standard neuropsychological testing in some patients with advanced ALS, cognitive tests performed using only oculomotor functions offer additional potential, allowing the study of patients much later in their disease course. The study of oculomotor dysfunction holds significant promise as an additional source of much needed prognostic, monitoring, and mechanistic biomarkers for ALS.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Sharma, R., Hicks, S., Berna, C. M., Kennard, C., Talbot, K., & Turner, M. R. (2011). Oculomotor dysfunction in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a comprehensive review. Archives of neurology. https://doi.org/10.1001/archneurol.2011.130
Vancouver
Sharma R, Hicks S, Berna CM, Kennard C, Talbot K, Turner MR. Oculomotor dysfunction in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a comprehensive review. Archives of neurology. 2011. doi:10.1001/archneurol.2011.130. PMID: 21747027.
BibTeX
@article{sharma2011-21747027,
author = {Sharma, R. and Hicks, S. and Berna, C. M. and Kennard, C. and Talbot, K. and Turner, M. R.},
title = {{Oculomotor dysfunction in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a comprehensive review}},
journal = {Archives of neurology},
year = {2011},
doi = {10.1001/archneurol.2011.130},
pmid = {21747027},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1001/archneurol.2011.130}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Developments in the assessment of oculomotor function, including portable eye-tracking devices, have revealed more subtle impairments in ALS in relation to phenotype, which can now be better understood through parallel elucidation of the normal cerebral oculomotor control network.
- The study of oculomotor dysfunction holds significant promise as an additional source of much needed prognostic, monitoring, and mechanistic biomarkers for ALS.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 36/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Archives of neurology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2011 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 21747027) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100. |
| Total | 36 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Brain scans and imaging
Also tagged “dysfunction”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “dysfunction”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.