SynthesisChinese medical journal2017
Genetic and Clinical Advances of Congenital Muscular Dystrophy.
Synthesis in Chinese medical journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The congenital muscular dystrophies.Annals of the Child Neurology Society · 2024Review
- Gastrointestinal and nutritional care in pediatric neuromuscular disorders.World journal of clinical pediatrics · 2023Review
- Novel Radiological Brain Anomalies in a Patient with Congenital Muscular Dystrophy due to FKRP Mexican Founder Mutation c.1387A > G: Review of the Literature.Journal of pediatric genetics · 2023Article
- Characterization of individuals with selected muscular dystrophies from the expanded pilot of the Muscular Dystrophy Surveillance, Tracking and Research Network (MD STARnet) in the United States.Birth defects research · 2021Article
- A Promising Future for Stem-Cell-Based Therapies in Muscular Dystrophies-In Vitro and In Vivo Treatments to Boost Cellular Engraftment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Review
- Muscle Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients with Various Clinical Subtypes ofChinese medical journal · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim was to update the genetic and clinical advances of congenital muscular dystrophy (CMD), based on a systematic review of the literature from 1991 to 2017. DATA SOURCES: Articles in English published in PubMed from 1991 to 2017 English were searched. The terms used in the literature searches were CMD. STUDY SELECTION: The task force initially identified citations for 98 published articles. Of the 98 articles, 52 studies were selected after further detailed review. Three articles, which were not written in English, were excluded from the study. This study referred to all the important and English literature in full.
resultsCMD is a group of early-onset disorders encompassing great clinical and genetic heterogeneity. Patients present with muscle weakness typically from birth to early infancy, delay or arrest of gross motor development, and joint and/or spinal rigidity. The diagnosis of CMD relies on clinical findings, brain and muscle imaging, muscle biopsy histology, muscle and/or skin immunohistochemical staining, and molecular genetic testing.
conclusionsAdvances in next-generation sequencing and histopathological techniques have enabled the recognition of distinct CMD subtypes supported by specific gene identification. Genetic counseling and multidisciplinary management of CMD play an important role in help patients and their family. Further elucidation of the significant clinical and genetic heterogeneity, therapeutic targets, and the clinical care for patients remains our challenge for the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.