Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,046

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prevalence of Muscular Dystrophies: A Systematic Literature Review

Open access
Theadom, Alice, Rodrigues, Miriam, Roxburgh, Richard, Balalla, Shiavnthi, Higgins, Chris, Bhattacharjee, Rohit, Jones, Kelly, Krishnamurthi, Rita, Feigin, Valery·2014·Neuroepidemiology

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.

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 · 10.1159/000369343

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 2,046

Metadata

Authors
Theadom, A., Rodrigues, M., Roxburgh, R., Balalla, S., Higgins, C., Bhattacharjee, R., Jones, K., Krishnamurthi, R., & Feigin, V.
Venue
Neuroepidemiology
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2014
Volume
43
Issue
3-4
Pages
259-268
ISSN
  • 0251-5350 (ISSN-L)
  • 1423-0208
OpenAlex
W2020685420
Cited by
2,046
References
3
FWCI
10.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Prevalence of Muscular Dystrophies: A Systematic Literature Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1159/000369343
The paper
Theadom, A., Rodrigues, M., Roxburgh, R., Balalla, S., Higgins, C., Bhattacharjee, R., Jones, K., Krishnamurthi, R., & Feigin, V. (2014). Prevalence of Muscular Dystrophies: A Systematic Literature Review. Neuroepidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1159/000369343

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.