4.5 Article

Improving recognition of Duchenne muscular dystrophy: a retrospective case note review

期刊

ARCHIVES OF DISEASE IN CHILDHOOD
卷 99, 期 12, 页码 1074-1077

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2014-306366

关键词

-

资金

  1. Northumberland Tyne and Wear Comprehensive Local Research Network
  2. Northern Deanery
  3. MRC [MR/K000608/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Medical Research Council [MR/K000608/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0512-10036] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Over the last 30 years, there has been little improvement in the age of diagnosis of Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) (mean age of 4.5-4.11 years). Aim To review the diagnostic process for DMD in boys without a family history in order to identify where delays occur and suggest areas for improvement. Design A retrospective case note review. Setting A tertiary centre for neuromuscular diseases in England. Patients All boys without family history diagnosed with DMD in the last 10 years (n=20). Outcome measures Mean age at four key steps in the diagnostic pathway of DMD. Results (1) Age at first reported symptoms of DMD was 32.5 (8-72) months (2.7 years). (2) First engagement of a healthcare professional was at 42.9 (10-90) months. (3) Creatine kinase (CK) levels were checked at 50.1 (14-91) months. (4) Diagnosis of DMD was confirmed at 51.7 (16-91) months (4.3 years). The total delay from parental concern to diagnosis was 19.2 (4-50) months (1.6 years). Conclusions Our study shows an improvement in the age of diagnosis of DMD although there continues to be a delay in presentation to a health professional and a delay in obtaining a CK test. To reduce these delays, we propose screening for DMD as part of the Child Health Surveillance Programme, in addition to lowering the threshold for CK testing in primary care by promoting a new DMD mnemonic MUSCLE. An earlier diagnosis of DMD will allow timely access to genetic counselling, standards of care and clinical trials.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据