Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42703430›Full record

ArticleCureus2026

A Registry-Based Perspective of Interventional Clinical Trials for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.

Jeet H Chaudhary, Jiya O Chacko, Viswabhaskar Susarla, Sai Subramanya Kashyap Peraboina, Shrabya Sen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jeet H ChaudharyNeurology, Smt. N.H.L. Municipal Medical College, Ahmedabad, IND.
Jiya O ChackoNeurology, Sri Uthradom Thirunnal Institute of Medical Sciences, Thiruvananthapuram, IND.
Viswabhaskar SusarlaNeurology, Kids Neuro Care LLC, Orlando, USA.
Sai Subramanya Kashyap PeraboinaNeurology, Bukhara State Medical Institute, Bukhara, UZB.
Shrabya SenNeurology, Rangpur Community Medical College, Kalispell, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

clinical trialsduchenne muscular dystrophyintervention typestudy designtrial phase

Identifiers

PMID42703430
PMCPMC13546769

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.