ArticleNeurology2026
A Validated Prognostic Score for Time to Loss of Ambulation in Patients With Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.
Article in Neurology, 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesDevelopment of a prognostic score for time to loss of ambulation (LoA) may help guide treatment of patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). Information from clinical data sources was used to create a prognostic score for LoA for use in practice.
methodsData used included 4 natural history databases and 3 clinical trial placebo arms. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) 6-minute walk distance ≥75 m; (2) a subsequent visit with an outcome assessment that identified LoA; (3) current corticosteroid use; and (4) available data on prognostic factors. Classification and regression tree models for time to LoA were used to classify patients into 5 risk groups (group 5 = highest risk), prioritizing the easily obtained rise from floor (RFF) and 10-m walk/run (10MWR) times as predictors. The prognostic score was validated in the Cooperative International Neuromuscular Research Group data.
resultsData from 608 boys were analyzed (mean age 9.1 years). Kaplan-Meier curves for time to LoA for each risk group were well separated, describing meaningful differences in time to LoA. Median time to LoA for risk group 1 was not reached during a median of 2.0 years of follow-up. Median times to LoA for risk groups 2-5 were 4.4 (95% CI 4.0-inf), 3.0 (2.1-4.1), 2.0 (1.6-2.1), and 0.9 (0.8-1.6) years, respectively. These risk groups showed concordant times to LoA among 226 patients in the validation data and provided finer separation of patients across different levels of LoA risk than thresholds based on individual functional tests. DISCUSSION: Patients with DMD were classified into 5 risk groups for LoA using a simple, easy-to-use prognostic score based on RFF and 10MWR thresholds. The prognostic score replicated well in validation data and performed better than previously proposed classifications used in practice. Incorporating the prognostic score for time to LoA into a clinical visit may allow clinicians to counsel patients on trial eligibility, need for mobility devices, home adjustments, financial accommodations, and psychosocial needs. The prognostic score may also be used in trials to inform inclusion criteria and stratification. Study limitations included limited data for prediction of LoA risk beyond 4 years.
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.