Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31606891›Full record

ReviewThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2019

Assisted standing for Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

Katy Pedlow, Suzanne McDonough, Sheila Lennon, Claire Kerr, Ian Bradbury

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06033885 (Changes in User Satisfaction and Quality of Life Following 4 Weeks of Instrumented Standing Frame Intervention in Children With Disabilities - a Feasibility Intervention Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.2field-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.

NCT06033885 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Changes in User Satisfaction and Quality of Life Following 4 Weeks of Instrumented Standing Frame Intervention in Children With Disabilities - a Feasibility Intervention Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Southern DenmarkRan2024 to 2024Enrolled20ConditionsFunctional DisabilityArmsPONDUS®
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Assisted standing for Duchenne muscular dystrophy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Review
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Katy PedlowCentre for Health and Rehabilitation Technologies (CHaRT), Institute of Nursing and Health Research, Ulster University, Room 1F110, Shore Road, Newtownabbey, County Antrim, UK, BT37 OQB.
Suzanne McDonough
Sheila Lennon
Claire Kerr
Ian Bradbury
University of Ulster · GBFlinders University · AUQueen's University Belfast · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is the most common X-linked neuromuscular disorder. When boys with DMD reach the second decade of life, they lose their ability to walk and become wheelchair dependent. Standing devices and orthoses are considered to be an essential component in the therapy management of DMD. Clinical opinion and research from other neurological conditions highlight the proposed benefits of standing device use, however, its effect within this population is currently unknown. A review of the evidence for the use of standing devices and orthoses is necessary to inform all stakeholders, including people with DMD, clinicians, decision makers and funders, and to guide future research.

objectivesTo assess the effects of standing devices and orthoses on musculoskeletal impairments (such as pain, contracture, scoliosis development and bone density) in boys and men with DMD, and secondarily to determine their effect on quality of life, participation in activities, and patient experience (satisfaction). We also considered any adverse events associated with their use. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, PEDro, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global up to 5 September 2019. We checked references in identified trials, handsearched journal abstracts, and searched trials registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of any model of standing device for use in DMD. The control interventions would have been any other comparison group, including no standing device, a different model of standing device, usual care, or an alternative form of assistive weight bearing. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. MAIN

resultsAlthough we identified 13 potentially relevant studies, none met the inclusion criteria for this review. AUTHORS'

conclusionsSince there were no RCTs or quasi-RCTs available to evaluate the effectiveness of standing devices in people with DMD, studies are needed to investigate the effectiveness of standing devices in this population.

Identifiers

PMID31606891
PMCPMC6790222
OpenAlexW2105381062

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.