Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22938878›Full record

ReviewPhysical medicine and rehabilitation clinics of North America2012

Muscle biopsy evaluation in neuromuscular disorders.

Nanette C Joyce, Björn Oskarsson, Lee-Way Jin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Physical medicine and rehabilitation clinics of North America, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 94 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
94citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 43% 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

94 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 179 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. From Doubt to Diagnosis: Canadian Patient Perspectives on a Limb-Girdle Muscular Dystrophy Diagnosis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

34 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nanette C JoyceDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of California Davis School of Medicine, 4860 Y Street, Suite 3850, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA. Nanette.joyce@ucdmc.ucdavis.edu
Björn Oskarsson
Lee-Way Jin
University of California, Davis · US

Funding

Rehabilitation Medicine Scientist Training (RMST) ProgramK12HD001097 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI BONINGER, MICHAEL L. · 1995 to 2016
$14.1M
NICHD NIH HHS K12 HD001097
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article reviews the indications for a muscle biopsy, and then gives a step-by-step description of the processes of muscle selection through to interpreting the biopsy report. The article aims to aid the clinician in preparing for a muscle biopsy procedure to avoid common pitfalls and obtain optimal results from this minimally invasive procedure. The basic anatomic structure of normal muscle is reviewed to provide a foundation for understanding common patterns of pathologic change observed in muscle disease and common and disease-specific histopathologic findings are presented, focusing on a select group of neuromuscular diseases.

Indexed as

BiopsyHumansMuscle, SkeletalNeuromuscular DiseasesSpecimen Handling

Identifiers

PMID22938878
PMCPMC4590778
OpenAlexW2010367425

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.