ArticleEpilepsia2023
Recognition and epileptology of protracted CLN3 disease.
Article in Epilepsia, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recommendations for the diagnosis and management of cln3 disease (batten disease) using the Delphi consensus methodology.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2026Guideline
- Recent Advances in Visual Dysfunction and Ocular Biomarkers in Neurological Disorders.Eye and brain · 2025Review
- Recognition and epileptology of protracted CLN3 disease.Epilepsia · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study was undertaken to analyze phenotypic features of a cohort of patients with protracted CLN3 disease to improve recognition of the disorder.
methodsWe analyzed phenotypic data of 10 patients from six families with protracted CLN3 disease. Haplotype analysis was performed in three reportedly unrelated families.
resultsVisual impairment was the initial symptom, with onset at 5-9 years, similar to classic CLN3 disease. Mean time from onset of visual impairment to seizures was 12 years (range = 6-41 years). Various seizure types were reported, most commonly generalized tonic-clonic seizures; focal seizures were present in four patients. Progressive myoclonus epilepsy was not seen. Interictal electroencephalogram revealed mild background slowing and 2.5-3.5-Hz spontaneous generalized spike-wave discharges. Additional interictal focal epileptiform discharges were noted in some patients. Age at death for the three deceased patients was 31, 31, and 52 years. Molecular testing revealed five individuals were homozygous for c.461-280_677 + 382del966, the "common 1-kb" CLN3 deletion. The remaining individuals were compound heterozygous for various combinations of recurrent pathogenic CLN3 variants. Haplotype analysis demonstrated evidence of a common founder for the common 1-kb deletion. Dating analysis suggested the deletion arose approximately 1500 years ago and thus did not represent cryptic familial relationship in this Australian cohort. SIGNIFICANCE: We highlight the protracted phenotype of a disease generally associated with death in adolescence, which is a combined focal and generalized epilepsy syndrome with progressive neurological deterioration. The disorder should be suspected in an adolescent or adult patient presenting with generalized or focal seizures preceded by progressive visual loss. The common 1-kb deletion has been typically associated with classic CLN3 disease, and the protracted phenotype has not previously been reported with this genotype. This suggests that modifying genetic factors may be important in determining this somewhat milder phenotype and identification of these factors should be the subject of future research.
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.