ArticleScientific reports2025
A two-site collaborative study of electrical impedance myography for evaluation of disease progression in murine Duchenne muscular dystrophy models.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accessibility to outcome measures that reliably assess disease pathology in preclinical studies are vital, especially for rare disorders such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). The non-invasive technique of electrical impedance myography (EIM) has shown potential as an outcome measure in patients and mouse models of neuromuscular disorders. However, these preclinical observations have been limited to a single site. Here, we performed a longitudinal, parallel two-site study to assess the potential of EIM as an outcome measure by using two DMD mouse models - mdx mice on a C57BL/10ScSn/J or DBA/2J genetic background - differing in disease severity, and being hypertrophic and atrophic, respectively, over a ten-month period, in which mice were evaluated monthly. We found that longitudinally acquired phase values were the most reliable, with relatively minor differences between study sites. Histopathology, assessed at 8, 12, 28, or 52 weeks of age correlated well with EIM phase values in both models. Our findings highlight the applicability of EIM as a robust, preclinical outcome measure for DMD.
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.