Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31479456›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Categorising trajectories and individual item changes of the North Star Ambulatory Assessment in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

Francesco Muntoni, Joana Domingos, Adnan Y Manzur, Anna Mayhew, Michela Guglieri, UK NorthStar Network, Gautam Sajeev, James Signorovitch, Susan J Ward

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Real-world outcomes of delandistrogene moxeparvovec gene therapy: Motor outcomes and emerging safety concerns.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2026
    Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Fully personalized modelling of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy ambulation.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2025
    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

9 authors.

Francesco MuntoniDubowitz Neuromuscular Centre, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health & Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9102-5232
Joana DomingosDubowitz Neuromuscular Centre, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health & Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Adnan Y ManzurDubowitz Neuromuscular Centre, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health & Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Anna MayhewJohn Walton Muscular Dystrophy Research Centre, Newcastle University, Newcastle, United Kingdom.
Michela GuglieriJohn Walton Muscular Dystrophy Research Centre, Newcastle University, Newcastle, United Kingdom.
UK NorthStar Network
Gautam SajeevCollaborative Trajectory Analysis Project, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
James SignorovitchCollaborative Trajectory Analysis Project, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Susan J WardCollaborative Trajectory Analysis Project, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.

Funding

Department of HealthMedical Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Functional variability among boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is well recognised and complicates interpretation of clinical studies. We hypothesised that boys with DMD could be clustered into groups sharing similar trajectories of ambulatory function over time, as measured by the North Star Ambulatory Assessment (NSAA) total score. We also explored associations with other variables such as age, functional abilities, and genotype. Using the NorthStar Clinical Network database, 395 patients with >1 NSAA assessment were identified. We utilised latent class trajectory analysis of longitudinal NSAA scores, which produced evidence for at least four clusters of boys sharing similar trajectories versus age in decreasing order of clinical severity: 25% of the boys were in cluster 1 (NSAA falling to ≤ 5 at age ~10y), 35% were in cluster 2 (NSAA ≤ 5 ~12y), 21% in were cluster 3 (NSAA≤ 5 ~14y), and 19% in cluster 4 (NSAA > 5 up to 15y). Mean ages at diagnosis of DMD were similar across clusters (4.2, 3.9, 4.3, and 4.8y, respectively). However, at the first NSAA assessment, a significant (p<0.05) association was observed between earlier declining clusters and younger age, worse NSAA, slower rise from supine, slower 10 metre walk/run times, and younger age of steroid initiation. In order to assess the probability of observing complete loss of function for individual NSAA items, we examined the proportion of patients who shifted from a score of 1 or 2 at baseline to a score of 0. We also assessed the probability of gain of function using the inverse assessment and stratified the probability of deterioration, improvement-or static behavior-by age ranges and using baseline functional status. Using this tool, our study provides a comprehensive assessment of the NSAA in a large population of patients with DMD and, for the first time, describes discrete clusters of disease progression; this will be invaluable for future DMD clinical trial design and interpretation of findings.

Indexed as

PhenotypeAdolescentBiological Variation, IndividualChildChild, PreschoolClinical Decision-MakingDisease ProgressionHumansInfantMaleMuscular Dystrophy, DuchennePhysical TherapistsPhysical Therapy ModalitiesSeverity of Illness IndexSymptom Assessment

Identifiers

PMID31479456
PMCPMC6719875

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.