ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Assessing movement quality in individuals with Duchenne muscular dystrophy utilizing accelerometry: Comparisons with healthy controls.
Article in PLOS digital health, 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is characterized by progressive decline in skeletal muscle function leading to loss of ambulation and premature cardiopulmonary failure. The ability to monitor declines in skeletal muscle function in a free-living setting would be advantageous. Prior studies have utilized accelerometer measures of movement quantity (e.g., counts per minute, fraction of activity time), but accelerometry research on measures of movement quality in DMD is limited. The aim of the study was to compare quality of movement between a healthy control cohort and individuals with DMD using accelerometry. Accelerometer data were obtained from one study visit for each healthy control (N = 92; ActiGraph Link GT9X, GT3X-BT or a combination) and one to three study visits for each participant with DMD (N = 100; Link GT9X). Measures included counts per minute, entropy, jerk, and movement frequency (mean and standard deviation). Median (IQR) of each measure was reported for each group, including healthy controls and both ambulatory and non-ambulatory DMD participants, and significant differences across each group were compared using Mann-Whitney U tests. Correlations were assessed between accelerometer measures of movement quantity and quality, and predictive change in DMD ambulatory status was assessed using longitudinal regression. Significant differences (P < 0.01) were observed in all measures between healthy controls, ambulatory DMD, and non-ambulatory DMD participants. Most measures were lower in DMD participants, suggesting decreased movement. Movement frequency values were higher in DMD (Healthy Controls 3.19 [3.05-3.45], Ambulatory DMD 3.60 [3.43-3.89], Non-Ambulatory DMD 4.32 [4.04-4.52]), suggesting more disordered movements. Counts per minute correlated strongly with both jerk (r: 0.722, P < 0.05) and mean frequency (r: -0.813, P < 0.05). Matched to age, individuals with DMD produce progressively fewer and more disordered (lower quality) movement compared to healthy individuals. Significantly lower entropy and jerk may be explained by a progressive decline in the strength of movements produced by individuals with DMD.
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.