ArticleOrphanet journal of rare diseases2025
Epidemiological report and diagnostic approach used in the neuromuscular population of Liege, Belgium.
Article in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatients with neuromuscular diseases (NMD) have undergone considerable technological progress in terms of diagnosis and treatment over the past few years. Specifically, next-generation sequencing (NGS) has significantly expanded genetic diagnosis. Despite this, some patients remain undiagnosed and therefore without access to specific treatments. Analyses of epidemiology and diagnostic approaches in reference centers are required to determine effective strategies to improve diagnostic rates.
methodsWe studied the proportion of each NMD and associated investigations in the patient population of the Neuromuscular Reference Center (NMRC) of Liege, Belgium, in 2023. The investigation tools used included laboratory testing, muscle biopsy, muscle imaging, single-gene sequencing, targeted NGS panels, and whole-exome sequencing (WES).
resultsOf the 1084 patients who were regularly followed up, more than one-third had neuropathies (36.6%) that were divided equally between genetic and acquired causes. The second most common disorder was muscular dystrophies, which represented more than a quarter (27.5%). Third, 11.2% of the patients had motor neuron diseases. The other NMD (i.e., myopathies, ataxias, spastic paraplegias, and channelopathies) ranged from 2.1% to 6. %. A total of 13.7% of the patients had unconfirmed diagnoses, 31.5% had confirmed acquired disorders, and 54.9% had genetically confirmed disorders. Among the genetic diagnoses, 32.7% were obtained by NGS. The remaining 67.3% were determined using other genetic testing methods [i.e., array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH), multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA), polymerase chain reaction (PCR), southern blotting (SB)].
conclusionMore than two-thirds of patients received a definitive diagnosis without the use of next-generation sequencing. Although innovative technologies such as whole genome sequencing and long-read sequencing are expected to eventually replace NGS panels and traditional methods (e.g., MLPA, PCR, aCGH), their current cost and the complexity of variant interpretation limit their widespread use in routine clinical practice. As a result, these older techniques remain relevant and valuable in current diagnostic workflow.
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.