ArticleGenes2023
Glycogen Storage Disease: Expert Opinion on Clinical Diagnosis Revisited after Molecular Testing.
Article in Genes, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Metabolic Myopathies and HyperCKemia in Adulthood: A Clinical Approach to Diagnosis and Management.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Clinical and genetic analyses of 17 Chinese patients with glycogen storage disease type IXc.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2025Article
- Mitochondrial Dysfunction in Glycogen Storage Disorders (GSDs).Biomolecules · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study sought to analyze whether an accurate diagnosis of the type and subtype of hepatic Glycogen Storage Diseases (GSDs) could be performed based on general clinical and biochemical aspects via comparing the proposed diagnostic hypotheses with the molecular results. Twelve physicians with experience in hepatic GSDs reviewed 45 real cases comprising a standardized summary of clinical and laboratory data. There was no relation between the hit rate and the time since graduation, the time of experience in GSD, and the number of patients treated during their careers. The average assertiveness was 47%, with GSD Ia and Ib being the best-identified types, while no expert correctly identified GSD IXc. Underage investigation for later manifestations, incomplete clinical description, and complementary analysis, the overvaluation of a specific clinical finding ("false positive") or the discarding of the diagnosis in the absence of it ("false negative"), as well as the lack of knowledge of the rarest GSD types, may have impacted the accuracy of the assessment. This study emphasized that characteristics considered as determinants in identifying the specific types or subtypes of GSD are not exclusive, thus becoming factors that may have induced the evaluators to misdiagnose.
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.