ArticleMuscle & nerve2026
Exploring the Value of Quantitative Muscle Ultrasound in Neuromuscular Junction Disorders: A Pilot Study.
Article in Muscle & nerve, 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
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/
aimsQuantitative muscle ultrasound (QMUS) is a validated technique for assessing muscle pathology, yet its role in disorders primarily affecting the neuromuscular junction (NMJ) remains unclear. This pilot study aimed to explore whether QMUS is associated with structural muscle changes in patients with acquired or genetic NMJ disorders.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study of 18 patients with confirmed NMJ disorders who underwent electrodiagnostic testing (EDx), including repetitive nerve stimulation (RNS) and/or stimulated single-fiber electromyography (SFEMG), combined with QMUS. Patients were grouped into congenital myasthenic syndromes (CMS) and acquired autoimmune myasthenia (myasthenia gravis [MG] or Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome [LEMS]). QMUS scores were classified as normal, borderline, or abnormal based on muscle echogenicity z-scores derived from a validated algorithm.
resultsAbnormal EDx was present in 13 of 18 (72%) patients. Abnormal decrement (> 10%) was observed in 7/18 patients, and abnormal jitter in the orbicularis oculi muscle was found in 6/8 patients. QMUS demonstrated normal echogenicity in 14/18 (78%) patients, while 4/18 (22%) showed abnormal or borderline echogenicity, including 2/5 (40%) with generalized MG. All patients with borderline or abnormal QMUS findings had concomitant abnormal RNS and/or SFEMG. DISCUSSION: Structural muscle changes, reflected by altered echogenicity, may occur in a subset of patients with NMJ disorders, although QMUS shows limited sensitivity compared with EDx. Future studies using standardized protocols, dynamic assessments, and targeted evaluation of clinically relevant muscles, such as facial and bulbar, are needed to determine whether QMUS may serve as a complementary tool for disease characterization or monitoring.
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.