PofoliaShared via Pofolia

Neuroepidemiology· 2014Q1· Review

Prevalence of Muscular Dystrophies: A Systematic Literature Review

Alice Theadom, Miriam Rodrigues, Richard Roxburgh, Shivanthi Balalla et al.

Short summary

This systematic review found the combined prevalence of all muscular dystrophies to be between 19.8 and 25.1 per 100,000 person-years, with myotonic, Duchenne, and facioscapulohumeral dystrophies being the most common types.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • Combined prevalence of all muscular dystrophies is 19.8-25.1 per 100,000 person-years.
  • Myotonic dystrophy, Duchenne MD, and FSHD are the most common types.
  • Data compiled from 38 studies across 19 countries (1960-2013).
  • Significant variation in prevalence likely due to differing study methodologies and populations.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Determining the prevalence of neuromuscular disorders for the general population is important to identify the scope of burden on society and enable comparisons with other health conditions. This systematic review aims to identify and collate the findings of studies published between 1960 and 2013 on the prevalence of all types of muscular dystrophies. SUMMARY: Relevant articles were identified through electronic database searches and manual searches of reference lists. There were 38 articles from across 19 countries that met the inclusion criteria. The total combined prevalence for all muscular dystrophies for studies classified as having a low risk of bias ranged between 19.8 and 25.1 per 100,000 person-years. Myotonic dystrophy (0.5-18.1 per 100,000), Duchenne muscular dystrophy (1.7-4.2) and facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy (3.2-4.6 per 100,000) were found to be the most common types of disorder. There was wide variation in study methodology, case ascertainment, and verification procedures and populations studied, all of which may contribute to the wide prevalence range, in addition to the likely variation in prevalence by country. Key Messages: Greater consistency in the conduct and reporting of neuroepidemiological studies is urgently needed to enable comparisons to be made between studies, countries, and over time.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Neuroepidemiology, 2014 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience

Cellular and Molecular NeuroscienceNeuroscience