ArticleCureus2026
A Registry-Based Perspective of Interventional Clinical Trials for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.
Article in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is a severe, progressive, X-linked genetic disorder caused by pathogenic variants in the dystrophin gene, leading to progressive muscle weakness, loss of ambulation, and premature mortality. Clinical trials are essential for advancing evidence-based management of DMD; however, the overall patterns of study design, intervention strategies, funding, and results reporting remain incompletely characterized. This study aimed to characterize interventional DMD clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov as of May 25, 2026, and to assess patterns in study design, intervention type, trial phase, funding, results reporting, and trial start era. Methods A retrospective registry-based descriptive study was conducted using ClinicalTrials.gov. DMD-related records were identified using the free-text terms "Duchenne muscular dystrophy," "Duchenne," and "DMD"; the search was not restricted by trial start year. Eligible records were interventional trials with a DMD-specific objective. Trial-level eligibility characteristics, study design, intervention type, trial phase, funding source, results posting, and start year were summarized. Era-wise comparisons were performed using the Fisher-Freeman-Halton exact test. Results A total of 232 interventional DMD trial records were included. Male-only eligibility was recorded for 198/232 trials (85.3%), and treatment was the primary purpose in 179/232 (77.2%). Drug interventions were the most frequent coded intervention category (101/232; 43.5%), Phase 2 was the largest phase category (58/232; 25.0%), and industry was the most common funder class (118/232; 50.9%). Results were posted on ClinicalTrials.gov for 76/232 trials (32.8%). The proportion of drug-intervention trials differed across start-year eras (p = 0.002). Biological interventions showed numerically greater representation in the most recent era, but the era-wise difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.420); industry sponsorship, Phase 3/4 status, randomization, and masking also did not differ significantly across eras. Conclusions ClinicalTrials.gov records show a predominantly treatment-oriented DMD research profile, with substantial industry involvement and frequent small-cohort studies. Therapeutic modalities are diverse, with biological and genetic approaches representing an important share of recent registered activity; however, most temporal comparisons of trial-design characteristics were not statistically significant. Limited registry results posting remains an important gap.
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.