Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35175440›Full record

ArticleNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2022

Diagnostic yield of multi-gene panel for muscular dystrophies and other hereditary myopathies.

Pablo Brea Winckler, Bruna Cristine Chwal, Marco Antonnio Rocha Dos Santos, Daniela Burguêz, Marcia Polese-Bonatto, Edmar Zanoteli, Marina Siebert, Filippo Pinto E Vairo, Márcia Lorena Fagundes Chaves, Jonas Alex Morales Saute

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 40% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The congenital muscular dystrophies.Annals of the Child Neurology Society · 2024
    Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Pablo Brea WincklerGraduate Program in Medicine: Medical Sciences, Universidade Federal Do Rio Grande Do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Bruna Cristine ChwalMedical Genetics Division, HCPA, Ramiro Barcelos, 2350, Porto Alegre, 90035-903, Brazil.
Marco Antonnio Rocha Dos SantosGraduate Program in Medicine: Medical Sciences, Universidade Federal Do Rio Grande Do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Daniela BurguêzMedical Genetics Division, HCPA, Ramiro Barcelos, 2350, Porto Alegre, 90035-903, Brazil.
Marcia Polese-BonattoMedical Genetics Division, HCPA, Ramiro Barcelos, 2350, Porto Alegre, 90035-903, Brazil.
Edmar ZanoteliDepartamento de Neurologia, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, Brazil.
Marina SiebertGraduate Program in Science in Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Universidade Federal Do Rio Grande Do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Filippo Pinto E VairoCenter for Individualized Medicine and Department of Clinical Genomics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Márcia Lorena Fagundes ChavesGraduate Program in Medicine: Medical Sciences, Universidade Federal Do Rio Grande Do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Jonas Alex Morales SauteGraduate Program in Medicine: Medical Sciences, Universidade Federal Do Rio Grande Do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, Brazil. jsaute@hcpa.edu.br.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1141-6573
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande · BRHospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre · BRMayo Clinic · USUniversidade de São Paulo · BRUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul · BR

Funding

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico 303158/2020-4fundo de incentivo à pesquisa e eventos-hcpa 17-0340
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genetic testing is being considered the first-step in the investigation of hereditary myopathies. However, the performance of the different testing approaches is little known. The aims of the present study were to evaluate the diagnostic yield of a next-generation sequencing panel comprising 39 genes as the first-tier test for genetic myopathies diagnosis and to characterize clinical and molecular findings of families from southern Brazil. Fifty-one consecutive index cases with clinical suspicion of genetic myopathies were recruited from October 2014 to March 2018 in a cross-sectional study. The overall diagnostic yield of the next-generation sequencing panel was 52.9%, increasing to 60.8% when including cases with candidate variants. Multi-gene panel solved the diagnosis of 12/25 (48%) probands with limb-girdle muscular dystrophies, of 7/14 (50%) with congenital muscular diseases, and of 7/10 (70%) with muscular dystrophy with prominent joint contractures. The most frequent diagnosis for limb-girdle muscular dystrophies were LGMD2A/LGMD-R1-calpain3-related and LGMD2B/LGMD-R2-dysferlin-related; for congenital muscular diseases, RYR1-related-disorders; and for muscular dystrophy with prominent joint contractures, Emery-Dreifuss-muscular-dystrophy-type-1 and COL6A1-related-disorders. In summary, the customized next-generation sequencing panel when applied in the initial investigation of genetic myopathies results in high diagnostic yield, likely reducing patient's diagnostic odyssey and providing important information for genetic counseling and participation in disease-specific clinical trials.

Indexed as

ContractureMuscular DiseasesMuscular DystrophiesMuscular Dystrophies, Limb-GirdleCross-Sectional StudiesHumansMutationDiagnosisHereditary myopathyMuscular dystrophyNext generation sequencing

Identifiers

PMID35175440
OpenAlexW4213290551

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.