Cited by 18Hereditary Neurological DisordersPeripheral Nerve DisordersPeripheral Neuropathies and Disorders

Charcot-marie-tooth disease type 1X in women: Electrodiagnostic findings: EDx in Women with CMT1X

Open access
Jerath, Nivedita U., Gutmann, Laurie, Reddy, Chandan G., Shy, Michael E.·2016·Muscle & Nerve

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Symptoms and signs in women with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type 1X (CMT1X) are often milder from those in men, but the available electrophysiologic evidence regarding CMT1X in women has been characterized in some patients as non-uniform or asymmetric. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed electrodiagnostic findings from 45 women and 31 men with CMT1X. RESULTS: Motor nerve conduction parameters in CMT1X women were less abnormal (P < 0.05), and a wider range of motor conduction velocities (CVs) were seen in women (P < 0.001) compared with men. In women, nerve conduction studies showed lack of conduction block without temporal dispersion. Motor CVs were more frequently in the normal range in women compared with men. There was no significant relationship to age of presentation and motor CV or compound muscle action potential in women. CONCLUSION: NCS parameters in CMT1X women did not demonstrate features suggestive of an acquired demyelinating neuropathy. Muscle Nerve, 2016 Muscle Nerve 54: -, 2016 Muscle Nerve 54: 728-732, 2016.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/mus.25077

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 17 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jerath, N. U., Gutmann, L., Reddy, C. G., & Shy, M. E.
Affiliations
University of Iowa (US)
Corresponding author
Jerath, Nivedita U.
Venue
Muscle & Nerve
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-07-04
Volume
54
Issue
4
Pages
728-732
ISSN
0148-639X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2271648242
Cited by
18
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1
FWCI
1.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Muscle & Nerve (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (U54NS065712)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Hereditary Neurological Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Peripheral Nerve Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Peripheral Neuropathies and Disorders
Keywords
sex differences, women, nerve conduction studies, motor nerve conduction velocity, conduction block, temporal dispersion, compound muscle action potential, age at presentation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disease, Child, Electrodiagnosis, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neural Conduction, Retrospective Studies, Sex Factors, Cohort Studies, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review