ArticleJournal of neurology2024
The diagnostic journey of patients being investigated for myopathy in a tertiary centre in England.
Article in Journal of neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Myopathies are heterogenous and can provide a diagnostic puzzle. Many patients investigated for myopathy will go on to other diagnoses. An overall understanding of how patients are investigated for suspected myopathy is lacking. Our aim was to understand how patients were investigated for myopathy in our tertiary centre and the timeline of their diagnostic journey. Through local database searches over a 5-year period (2015-2019), we identified a final total of 770 patients investigated for myopathy. Of these, 29.7% went on to a diagnosis of myopathy. The top non-myopathy diagnoses were neuropathy, spinal pathology and ataxia. Both the myopathy and non-myopathy groups had symptoms for an extended period before reaching specialist services (both groups 104 weeks). Following a first hospital visit, median time to diagnosis was not significantly different (myopathy 46.9 weeks, non-myopathy 40.7 weeks, p > 0.05). Data on the diagnostic journey for specific myopathies was also collected, with inflammatory myopathies diagnosed most quickly and muscular dystrophies most slowly. Muscle MRI and biopsy had the best positive predictive values (82.7% and 83.1%, respectively), while EMG had the best negative predictive value (89.3%). A combination of CK, EMG and neuroaxis MRI (brain and spinal cord) yielded at least one correct test result with respect to final diagnosis in 98.9% of cases. In conclusion, patients in whom a muscle disease is considered experience significant diagnostic delay. The first step in the diagnostic journey should be able to identify both myopathy and non-myopathy cases.
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.