Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23939629›Full record

ReviewAnnals of neurology2013

Therapeutic advances in muscular dystrophy.

Doris G Leung, Kathryn R Wagner

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of neurology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Galectin-3 and N-acetylglucosamine promote myogenesis and improve skeletal muscle function in the mdx model of Duchenne muscular dystrophy.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2018
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Transplantation of Allogeneic PW1JACC. Basic to translational science · 2017
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Doris G LeungCenter for Genetic Muscle Disorders, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, MD; Departments of Neurology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Kathryn R Wagner
Kennedy Krieger Institute · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The muscular dystrophies comprise a heterogeneous group of genetic disorders that produce progressive skeletal muscle weakness and wasting. There has been rapid growth and change in our understanding of these disorders in recent years, and advances in basic science are being translated into increasing numbers of clinical trials. This review will discuss therapeutic developments in 3 of the most common forms of muscular dystrophy: Duchenne muscular dystrophy, facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy, and myotonic dystrophy. Each of these disorders represents a different class of genetic disease (monogenic, epigenetic, and repeat expansion disorders), and the approach to therapy addresses the diverse and complex molecular mechanisms involved in these diseases. The large number of novel pharmacologic agents in development with good biologic rationale and strong proof of concept suggests there will be an improved quality of life for individuals with muscular dystrophy.

Indexed as

Genetic TherapyHumansMuscular Dystrophy, DuchenneMuscular Dystrophy, FacioscapulohumeralMyotonic Dystrophy

Identifiers

PMID23939629
PMCPMC3886293
OpenAlexW1534252971

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.