Observational studyMuscle & nerve2022
Non-dystrophic myotonia: 2-year clinical and patient reported outcomes.
Observational study in Muscle & nerve, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A clinical prediction rule for myotonia permanens associated with theCurrent research in neurobiology · 2026Article
- Active-NDM: Development of a patient-reported outcome questionnaire to measure the impact of non-dystrophic myotonia on activity of daily living.Journal of neuromuscular diseases · 2026Article
- Hydrops fetalis due to loss of function of hNav1.4 channel via compound heterozygous variants.Journal of human genetics · 2025Article
- A retrospective study of accuracy and usefulness of electrophysiological exercise tests.Journal of neurology · 2024Article
- Expert Insights from a Delphi-driven Neurologists' Panel: Real-world Mexiletine use in Patients with Myotonic Disorders in Italy.Journal of neuromuscular diseases · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/
aimsConsistency of differences between non-dystrophic myotonias over time measured by standardized clinical/patient-reported outcomes is lacking. Evaluation of longitudinal data could establish clinically relevant endpoints for future research.
methodsData from prospective observational study of 95 definite/clinically suspected non-dystrophic myotonia participants (six sites in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada) between March 2006 and March 2009 were analyzed. Outcomes included: standardized symptom interview/exam, Short Form-36, Individualized Neuromuscular Quality of Life (INQoL), electrophysiological short/prolonged exercise tests, manual muscle testing, quantitative grip strength, modified get-up-and-go test. Patterns were assigned as described by Fournier et al. Comparisons were restricted to confirmed sodium channelopathies (SCN4A, baseline, year 1, year 2: n = 34, 19, 13), chloride channelopathies (CLCN1, n = 32, 26, 18), and myotonic dystrophy type 2 (DM2, n = 9, 6, 2).
resultsMuscle stiffness was the most frequent symptom over time (54.7%-64.7%). Eyelid myotonia and paradoxical handgrip/eyelid myotonia were more frequent in SCN4A. Grip strength and combined manual muscle testing remained stable. Modified get-up-and-go showed less warm up in SCN4A but remained stable. Median post short exercise decrement was stable, except for SCN4A (baseline to year 2 decrement difference 16.6% [Q1, Q3: 9.5, 39.2]). Fournier patterns type 2 (CLCN1) and 1 (SCN4A) were most specific; 40.4% of participants had a change in pattern over time. INQoL showed higher impact for SCN4A and DM2 with scores stable over time. DISCUSSION: Symptom frequency and clinical outcome assessments were stable with defined variability in myotonia measures supporting trial designs like cross over or combined n-of-1 as important for rare disorders.
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.