ArticleNeurogenetics2024
Dystrophinopathy patient data as a guide to interpretation of pregestational female population screening for DMD gene variants.
Article in Neurogenetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Spectrum and carrier frequency of DMD in Yueyang, China: a population-based analysis using NGS and MLPA.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pregestational population screening of healthy females for copy number variants in DMD gene has raised numerous challenges regarding the interpretation and disclosure of these findings. Our objective was to analyze data from a local dystrophinopathy patient database, in comparison to population screening results. Utilizing the "Little steps" association registry for children with dystrophinopathy, we classified genetic findings (out-of-frame, in-frame, or difficult-to-predict) in 231 DMD and 90 BMD male patients. A comparison was made with a previously published cohort of 162 female carriers identified through population screening. Duplications classified as "difficult to predict" were absent in DMD/BMD patients, as opposed to 45.1% of women analyzed in the scope of population screening (p < 0.0001). While the distribution of deletions did not differ between the groups, significantly higher proportion of duplications initiated at the proximal hot spot in the DMD/BMD cohort (87.1%), vs. only 11.7% in women analyzed through population screening (p = 0.0038). Notably, duplications initiating in the dp427c promoter area were noted only in the latter cohort (n = 62). Local databases of dystrophinopathy patients can facilitate analysis and reporting of pregestational female population screening results. These conclusions facilitate future introductions of population screening genetic tests for diseases with variable presentation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39565433What 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.