Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21286948›Full record

ArticleCurrent treatment options in neurology2011

Inherited neuropathies.

Angelo Schenone, Lucilla Nobbio, Margherita Monti Bragadin, Giulia Ursino, Marina Grandis

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Current treatment options in neurology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Angelo SchenoneDepartment of Neuroscience, Ophthalmology, and Genetics, University of Genoa, Via De Toni 5, 16132, Genova, Italy, aschenone@neurologia.unige.it.
Lucilla Nobbio
Margherita Monti Bragadin
Giulia Ursino
Marina Grandis
University of Genoa · ITDon Carlo Gnocchi Foundation · IT

Funding

Telethon GUP10008
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

opinion statementInherited peripheral neuropathies are among the most common hereditary diseases of the nervous system. Charcot-Marie-Tooth (CMT) disease, also known from previous classifications as hereditary motor and sensory neuropathy (HMSN), is certainly the most common inherited neuropathy. In the past several years, various treatments for CMT have been proposed, although specific therapies are not yet available. In clinical practice, rehabilitative strategies remain the most helpful therapeutic approach to these patients. There is still a lack of consensus on the best way to rehabilitate patients affected by CMT. Based on our personal experience and on a review of the literature, we first recommend the prescription of ankle-foot orthoses (AFO) for patients affected by CMT; the choice of which patient, which AFO, and when to apply it depends on the individual condition of each patient and on the experience of the physician/therapist. Second, adaptive equipment (eg, button hook, long-handled shoehorn, elastic shoe laces) is available to compensate for hand deformities, sensory loss, and weakness. Third, moderate to intense strength training and aerobic exercise are well tolerated by patients affected by CMT; further studies are needed to establish whether these approaches are effective in improving their motor function and strength. There is not enough evidence to recommend muscle stretching exercises or proprioceptive kinesiotherapy, although in our experience both approaches may be helpful in selected CMT patients to prevent tendon retractions, muscle tightening, and loss of strength, and to improve balance. There is growing knowledge of the underlying genetic defects and molecular pathophysiology in CMT. To date, only a few clinical trials in CMT patients have been performed. A neurotrophic factor, neurotrophin 3, was used in a small sample of CMT1A patients with promising results, but it has not been tested in a larger cohort and there is currently no reason to suggest this therapy for CMT1A neuropathy. Based on positive results in an animal model of CMT1A, three trials with ascorbic acid (AA) were completed in a large number of patients with this neuropathy, with results that were negative overall. Therefore, it is not possible to recommend the use of AA in CMT1A patients at this time, but the results of a larger Italian-UK study and an American trial with higher doses of AA are still awaited. It is important to remember that a superimposed inflammatory/disimmune process may complicate the course of the neuropathy; in this case, severe worsening (especially motor) in a matter of weeks or months is a "red flag" that should suggest immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory treatment such as steroids, intravenous immunoglobulin, or plasma exchange. In fact, steroid-sensitive cases of HMSN were described many years ago, well before the genetic diagnosis was available. Symptomatic treatment to reduce neuropathic and nociceptive pain, both of which have been reported in patients affected by CMT, should be prescribed according to recently published guidelines for the therapy of pain. No evidence suggests any specific surgical intervention or change in diet or lifestyle for patients affected by various types of CMT.

Identifiers

PMID21286948
OpenAlexW4210593477

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.