Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 378

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease: frequency of genetic subtypes and guidelines for genetic testing

Open access
Murphy, Sinead M, Laura, Matilde, Fawcett, Katherine, Pandraud, Amelie, Liu, Yo-Tsen, Davidson, Gabrielle L, Rossor, Alexander M, Polke, James M, Castleman, Victoria, Manji, Hadi, Lunn, Michael P T, Bull, Karen, Ramdharry, Gita, Davis, Mary, Blake, Julian C, Houlden, Henry, Reilly, Mary M·2012·Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT) is a clinically and genetically heterogeneous group of diseases with approximately 45 different causative genes described. The aims of this study were to determine the frequency of different genes in a large cohort of patients with CMT and devise guidelines for genetic testing in practice. METHODS: The genes known to cause CMT were sequenced in 1607 patients with CMT (425 patients attending an inherited neuropathy clinic and 1182 patients whose DNA was sent to the authors for genetic testing) to determine the proportion of different subtypes in a UK population. RESULTS: A molecular diagnosis was achieved in 62.6% of patients with CMT attending the inherited neuropathy clinic; in 80.4% of patients with CMT1 (demyelinating CMT) and in 25.2% of those with CMT2 (axonal CMT). Mutations or rearrangements in PMP22, GJB1, MPZ and MFN2 accounted for over 90% of the molecular diagnoses while mutations in all other genes tested were rare. CONCLUSION: Four commonly available genes account for over 90% of all CMT molecular diagnoses; a diagnostic algorithm is proposed based on these results for use in clinical practice. Any patient with CMT without a mutation in these four genes or with an unusual phenotype should be considered for referral for an expert opinion to maximise the chance of reaching a molecular diagnosis.

Overview

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 · 10.1136/jnnp-2012-302451

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 378

Metadata

Authors
Murphy, S. M., Laura, M., Fawcett, K., Pandraud, A., Liu, Y.-T., Davidson, G. L., Rossor, A. M., Polke, J. M., Castleman, V., Manji, H., Lunn, M. P. T., Bull, K., Ramdharry, G., Davis, M., Blake, J. C., Houlden, H., & Reilly, M. M.
Venue
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2012-05-10
Volume
83
Issue
7
Pages
706-710
ISSN
  • 0022-3050 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-330X
OpenAlex
W2126779593
Cited by
378
References
1
FWCI
13.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease: frequency of genetic subtypes and guidelines for genetic testing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/jnnp-2012-302451
The paper
Murphy, S. M., Laura, M., Fawcett, K., Pandraud, A., Liu, Y.-T., Davidson, G. L., Rossor, A. M., Polke, J. M., Castleman, V., Manji, H., Lunn, M. P. T., Bull, K., Ramdharry, G., Davis, M., Blake, J. C., Houlden, H., & Reilly, M. M. (2012). Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease: frequency of genetic subtypes and guidelines for genetic testing. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2012-302451

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.