Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27524897›Full record

ReviewNeuropsychiatric disease and treatment2016

Current and emerging treatment strategies for Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

Jean K Mah

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.0field-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

67 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 130 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of vamorolone in Duchenne muscular dystrophy.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

7 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jean K MahDepartment of Pediatrics and Clinical Neurosciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Alberta Children's Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is the most common form of muscular dystrophy in childhood. It is caused by mutations of the DMD gene, leading to progressive muscle weakness, loss of independent ambulation by early teens, and premature death due to cardiorespiratory complications. The diagnosis can usually be made after careful review of the history and examination of affected boys presenting with developmental delay, proximal weakness, and elevated serum creatine kinase, plus confirmation by muscle biopsy or genetic testing. Precise characterization of the DMD mutation is important for genetic counseling and individualized treatment. Current standard of care includes the use of corticosteroids to prolong ambulation and to delay the onset of secondary complications. Early use of cardioprotective agents, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, and other supportive strategies has improved the life expectancy and health-related quality of life for many young adults with DMD. New emerging treatment includes viral-mediated microdystrophin gene replacement, exon skipping to restore the reading frame, and nonsense suppression therapy to allow translation and production of a modified dystrophin protein. Other potential therapeutic targets involve upregulation of compensatory proteins, reduction of the inflammatory cascade, and enhancement of muscle regeneration. So far, data from DMD clinical trials have shown limited success in delaying disease progression; unforeseen obstacles included immune response against the generated mini-dystrophin, inconsistent evidence of dystrophin production in muscle biopsies, and failure to demonstrate a significant improvement in the primary outcome measure, as defined by the 6-minute walk test in some studies. The long-term safety and efficacy of emerging treatments will depend on the selection of appropriate clinical end points and sensitive biomarkers to detect meaningful changes in disease progression. Correction of the underlying mutations using new gene-editing technologies and corticosteroid analogs with better safety profiles offers renewed hope for many individuals with DMD and their families.

Indexed as

Duchenne muscular dystrophyemerging treatmentreviewstandard of care

Identifiers

PMID27524897
PMCPMC4966503
OpenAlexW2484125054

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.