ArticleNeurology. Genetics2025
Test-Retest Reliability of Motor Function and Myometry Outcomes From the Vamorolone Trials in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.
Article in Neurology. Genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Vamorolone for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy: A Cross-Trial Efficacy Comparison With Classic Corticosteroids From the FOR-DMD Trial.Neurology · 2026Trial
- Evaluation of a serum protein signature as monitoring biomarker for Duchenne muscular dystrophy in a long-term clinical trial with corticosteroids.Skeletal muscle · 2026Trial
- MDBiomarkers: A queryable biomarkers database integrating multiple serum and tissue datasets for Duchenne muscular dystrophy.Journal of neuromuscular diseases · 2026Article
- Meeting report: Translating exercise research in dystrophinopathy to the clinic.Journal of neuromuscular diseases · 2026Article
- Evaluation of a serum protein signature as monitoring biomarker for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy in a long-term clinical trial with corticosteroids.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Understanding the reliability of outcomes used in clinical care and trials is important to delineate intervention-induced change from random variability. Reliability, sensitivity, and clinical meaningfulness of change are all key aspects of choosing the most appropriate outcome measure for a clinical trial. Common outcome measures to monitor progression and treatment effect in Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) include measures of strength (myometry) and motor function tests: stand from supine velocity (STANDV), North Star Ambulatory Assessment (NSAA), 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), 10-m run/walk (RWV), and 4-stair climb velocity (CLIMBV). Our objective was to present test-retest reliability of common outcome measures using pretreatment measurements and to provide insights into missing measurements. Methods: Data were used on outcome measures in steroid-naïve, 4 to <7 years participants with DMD in 2 multisite, multicountry vamorolone trials (VBP15-002 [n = 48 participants] and VBP15-004 [n = 121 participants]). Bland-Altman analysis, the coefficient of variation, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were used. Results: Based on the ICC, NSAA, RWV, and CLIMBV have good reliability, whereas the 6MWD and STANDV have moderate reliability. Two different techniques were used for myometry in VBP15-002 (CINRG Quantitative Measurement System [CQMS]) and VBP15-004 (MicroFET2 handheld digital muscle dynamometer [HHD]). Reliability of myometry ranged from poor to moderate, and CQMS did not show improved reliability over HHD. The 6MWD and myometry showed the highest rates of missingness. Because of similar age ranges and harmonized outcomes, our findings were compared with the FOR-DMD cohort. Myometry and CLIMBV were not in FOR-DMD; reliability findings were concordant for the 4 outcomes in common. For most outcomes, we found reduced reliability compared with previous studies in older age groups. Discussion: Reliable outcome measures, appropriate for the age of patients, are key to improving power in clinical trials, leading to fewer participants needed and reducing patient and site burden. We found NSAA, RWV, and CLIMBV to be the most reliable. This should be considered in the context of sensitivity to drug effect, and clinical meaningfulness of changes observed: all 5 motor outcomes were sensitive to drug effect of vamorolone and prednisone, whereas myometry was not.
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.