ArticleIndian journal of pediatrics2026
Restrictive Dermopathy in Neonates.
Article in Indian journal of pediatrics, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Restrictive dermopathy (RD) is a rare, lethal neonatal genodermatosis caused by mutations in LMNA or ZMPSTE24. It is characterized by taut, translucent skin, fixed arthrogryposis, facial dysmorphism, and early neonatal death. The authors describe three preterm neonates with features consistent with RD. Antenatally, all had polyhydramnios and reduced fetal movements; two had affected siblings. In one family, a sibling and targeted fetal testing confirmed a homozygous pathogenic ZMPSTE24 variant; in another, the index neonate was directly confirmed to carry the same mutation previously reported in the literature. Clinically, all neonates presented with taut, translucent skin, micrognathia, blepharophimosis, prominent superficial veins, and joint contractures. Despite supportive care, survival ranged from 3 to 37 d. Genetic confirmation facilitated targeted reproductive counseling. Skin biopsy or autopsy were not performed due to parental constraints. Diagnosis of RD relies primarily on clinical phenotype, with genetic confirmation crucial for recurrence-risk assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41455023What 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.