SynthesisPloS one2026
Accuracy of the molecular diagnosis of duchenne and becker muscular dystrophy: A systematic review with meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRecently, Molecular diagnosis of Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) and Becker muscular dystrophy (BMD) has become increasingly important in the management of these patients, with techniques such as multiplex ligation-dependent amplification (MLPA) and next-generation sequencing (NGS) coming to the fore. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of MLPA, NGS, and the algorithm MLPA-NGS for confirmatory diagnosis of DMD/BMD.
methodsWe systematically searched databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane and Web of Science) until July 2025 for studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of MLPA and/or NGS testing in patients with clinical suspicion of DMD, considering multiplex PCR or biopsy as the reference test. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model to estimate the sensitivity, specificity, and detection rate of each test. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias and the GRADE criteria were used to identify the certainty of evidence.
resultsWe included 10 studies (3786 patients) evaluating the use of MLPA and 14 studies (4333 patients) evaluating the use of NGS. For MLPA, the sensitivity was 0.80 (95%CI: 0.76-0.84; I2: 86%), the specificity was 0.93 (95%CI: 0.87-0.96; I2: 16%), and AUC 0.90 (CI-95%: 0.89-0.92). For NGS, the detection rate was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.61-0.87; I2: 94%). Furthermore, the detection rate increased to 0.97 (95% CI: 0.94-0.99; I2: 95%) when NGS was performed after MLPA. We observe a low risk of bias but with very low certainty in the estimations.
conclusionsIn patients with clinical suspicion of DMD, the MLPA test is very good but with very low certainty. However, in these patients with a negative MLPA, adding the NGS test would allow improve the detection rate. Therefore, the sequential use of these tests could be considered in patients who persist in the clinical suspicion.
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.