ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparative genetic diagnostic evaluation of pediatric neuromuscular diseases in a consanguineous population.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neuromuscular Disorders in Children Through the Lens of Next-Generation Sequencing: A Study of Diagnostic Yield.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Diagnostic impact of whole exome sequencing in neurometabolic disorders in Syrian children: a single center experience.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Neuromuscular diseases (NMD) are a group of neurological diseases that manifest with various clinical symptoms affecting different components of the peripheral nervous system, which play a role in voluntary body movements control. The primary objective of this study is to explore the diagnostic efficacy of a combined genetic and biochemical testing approach for patients with neuromuscular diseases with diverse presentations in a population with high rate of consanguinity. Genetic testing was performed using selected Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) gene panels and whole exome sequencing on the peripheral blood sample from the patients. The study results revealed that the majority of patients in our cohort had a history of consanguinity (83%). Genetic testing through gene panels and Whole Exome Sequencing yielded similar result. Out of the patients tested, 66% underwent gene panels testing, 56% had Whole Exome Sequencing, 32% received array Comparative Genomic Hybridization (CGH) assays, and 40% underwent metabolic testing. Overall, 58 patients (61%) received definitive results after following all tests. Among the remaining 36 patients, 19 exhibited variants of unknown significance (VOUS) (21%).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.