ArticleNeurogenetics2026
Genetic assessment of consecutively recruited dystonia cases from a single center.
Article in Neurogenetics, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The genetics of dystonia have been extensively investigated in population-based and multicenter cohorts. In this study, we analyzed a consecutively recruited, single-center German dystonia cohort using whole-exome sequencing (n = 153 affected individuals [n = 152 index cases from 152 dystonia families], n = 10 unaffected family members). Pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants were identified in established (n = 7) and less-established (n = 4) dystonia-associated genes, resulting in a diagnostic yield of 7.2% (11/152); all variants were heterozygous. Consistent with previous European studies, earlier age at onset (≤ 40 years; p value = 0.0218) was significantly associated with increased diagnostic yield and demonstrated acceptable predictive value (AUC = 0.76). This study (1) underscores the importance of both shared features-such as clinical characteristics associated with diagnostic yield-and distinct genetic features, including a relatively lower diagnostic rate and differences in the composition of implicated genes across cohort designs, and (2) suggests that exome-based testing may identify clinically relevant variants beyond the classic dystonia genes in selected patients undergoing diagnostic evaluation.
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.