Diagnostic strategies for muscular dystrophies: a cross-sectional study

Diagnostic strategies for muscular dystrophies: a... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/12-930" }, "headline": "Diagnostic strategies for muscular dystrophies: a cross-sectional study", "datePublished": "2023-08-03T14:24:15", "dateModified": "2024-03-04T10:56:58", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Franklin Hanna Rodriguez" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Jorge Mario Estrada-Alvarez" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Juan Guillermo Murillo" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Gloria Liliana Porras-Hurtado" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background Muscular dystrophies are a wide heterogeneity group of neuromuscular diseases that very often constitutes a challenge for clinicians to perform an adequate diagnosis. Many patients remain underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed consequently affecting their prognosis and quality of life. Therefore, we aimed to establish clinical and molecular characteristics of patients with increased CPK levels and muscular dystrophies in our region to facilitate diagnosis and follow-up on patients with suspected muscular dystrophies. Methods A cross-sectional study was made using a retrospective search of patients attended in Comfamiliar Risaralda between 2010 and 2021. The study included patients from both genders and all ages who presented with a diagnosis of polymyositis, myoclonus, myopathy, and muscular dystrophy between 2010 and 2022 in Comfamiliar Risaralda. Patients with CPK levels lower than 500 U/L were excluded. Results A database analysis was carried out from 2010 to 2022 of 5219 patients treated in a fourth-level care institution in the Eje Cafetero region, finding 221 patients filtered by a diagnosis of myopathy, myoclonus, polymyositis, and dystrophy. We found a combined prevalence of all muscular dystrophies of 4.2 per 100.000 among patients treated in our hospital base, Duchenne muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000, limb-girdle muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000, facioscapulohumeral dystrophy of 0.5 per 100.000, Bethem dystrophy, type 2 Emery Dreifuss muscular dystrophy, merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy and myosin storage disease of 0.1 per 100.000. A diagnostic sequence was elaborated from clinical and paraclinical features found in our patients. A diagnostic sequence was elaborated from clinical and paraclinical features found in our patients. Conclusions Although muscular dystrophies consist of a heterogeneous group of neuromuscular diseases, there are still clinical and paraclinical features that can help physicians to detect any particular case and perform a good approach and follow-up. Our diagnostic sequence will facilitate physicians to determine any particular muscular dystrophy. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/12-930/v2", "name": "Diagnostic strategies for muscular dystrophies: a cross-sectional..." } } ] } Home Browse Diagnostic strategies for muscular dystrophies: a cross-sectional... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Hanna Rodriguez F, Estrada-Alvarez JM, Guillermo Murillo J and Porras-Hurtado GL. Diagnostic strategies for muscular dystrophies: a cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :930 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.132804.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Revised Diagnostic strategies for muscular dystrophies: a cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 1 not approved] Franklin Hanna Rodriguez https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1104-2364 1 , Jorge Mario Estrada-Alvarez 1 , Juan Guillermo Murillo 2 , Gloria Liliana Porras-Hurtado 1 Franklin Hanna Rodriguez https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1104-2364 1 , Jorge Mario Estrada-Alvarez 1 , Juan Guillermo Murillo 2 , Gloria Liliana Porras-Hurtado 1 PUBLISHED 04 Mar 2024 Author details Author details 1 Risaralda, Institucion Universitaria de Comfamiliar Risaralda, Pereira, Risaralda, 660003, Colombia 2 Antioquia, Fundacion Universitaria San Martin, Sabaneta, Colombia Franklin Hanna Rodriguez Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Jorge Mario Estrada-Alvarez Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software Juan Guillermo Murillo Roles: Visualization Gloria Liliana Porras-Hurtado Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Supervision, Validation OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS Abstract Background Muscular dystrophies are a wide heterogeneity group of neuromuscular diseases that very often constitutes a challenge for clinicians to perform an adequate diagnosis. Many patients remain underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed consequently affecting their prognosis and quality of life. Therefore, we aimed to establish clinical and molecular characteristics of patients with increased CPK levels and muscular dystrophies in our region to facilitate diagnosis and follow-up on patients with suspected muscular dystrophies. Methods A cross-sectional study was made using a retrospective search of patients attended in Comfamiliar Risaralda between 2010 and 2021. The study included patients from both genders and all ages who presented with a diagnosis of polymyositis, myoclonus, myopathy, and muscular dystrophy between 2010 and 2022 in Comfamiliar Risaralda. Patients with CPK levels lower than 500 U/L were excluded. Results A database analysis was carried out from 2010 to 2022 of 5219 patients treated in a fourth-level care institution in the Eje Cafetero region, finding 221 patients filtered by a diagnosis of myopathy, myoclonus, polymyositis, and dystrophy. We found a combined prevalence of all muscular dystrophies of 4.2 per 100.000 among patients treated in our hospital base, Duchenne muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000, limb-girdle muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000, facioscapulohumeral dystrophy of 0.5 per 100.000, Bethem dystrophy, type 2 Emery Dreifuss muscular dystrophy, merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy and myosin storage disease of 0.1 per 100.000. A diagnostic sequence was elaborated from clinical and paraclinical features found in our patients. A diagnostic sequence was elaborated from clinical and paraclinical features found in our patients. Conclusions Although muscular dystrophies consist of a heterogeneous group of neuromuscular diseases, there are still clinical and paraclinical features that can help physicians to detect any particular case and perform a good approach and follow-up. Our diagnostic sequence will facilitate physicians to determine any particular muscular dystrophy. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords muscular dystrophy, Duchenne, Facioscapulohumeral, Bethlem, Limb-girdle, strategies, Merosin-deficient, Emery Dreifuss. Corresponding Author(s) Franklin Hanna Rodriguez ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Franklin Hanna Rodriguez Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2024 Hanna Rodriguez F et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Hanna Rodriguez F, Estrada-Alvarez JM, Guillermo Murillo J and Porras-Hurtado GL. Diagnostic strategies for muscular dystrophies: a cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :930 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.132804.2 ) First published: 03 Aug 2023, 12 :930 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.132804.1 ) Latest published: 04 Mar 2024, 12 :930 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.132804.2 ) Revised Amendments from Version 1 1. We reviewed the discussion again so that the types of dystrophies were clear. 2. We mentioned in the comment section the fact that we found a small number of cases for muscular dystrophy, as we followed to a hospital-based reference. 3. We clarified in the discussion section that the prevalence reported in this study are related to a population of patients who were tested for multiple indications including CPK levels. Due to limitations of the study, we cannot talk of a population prevalence but rather of a hospital prevalence. 4. We explained in the Study strengths and limitations section that patients in our country do not generally have access to molecular tests, so we perform a clinical characterization based on CPK levels, electromyography, and physical examination. 5. We established in the discussion section that we do not have anything novel to the existing knowledge about muscular dystrophies, but it is considered for general physicians to have a broad perspective and the different causes of an elevated CPK when they treat them in the emergency room, as it will allow patients with dystrophy to be diagnosed earlier. In addition, CPK was used in this study mostly to search for patients with probable dystrophy or confirmed muscular dystrophy. 6. We summarized two paragraphs concerning inflammatory myopathies from the discussion section. 7. We moved a paragraph from the Results section to the Methods section to better explain how we performed the patient selection process. 8. We added missing prevalence from the study in a new paragraph in the Results section. 9. We added a new paragraph in the Conclusion section. 1. We reviewed the discussion again so that the types of dystrophies were clear. 2. We mentioned in the comment section the fact that we found a small number of cases for muscular dystrophy, as we followed to a hospital-based reference. 3. We clarified in the discussion section that the prevalence reported in this study are related to a population of patients who were tested for multiple indications including CPK levels. Due to limitations of the study, we cannot talk of a population prevalence but rather of a hospital prevalence. 4. We explained in the Study strengths and limitations section that patients in our country do not generally have access to molecular tests, so we perform a clinical characterization based on CPK levels, electromyography, and physical examination. 5. We established in the discussion section that we do not have anything novel to the existing knowledge about muscular dystrophies, but it is considered for general physicians to have a broad perspective and the different causes of an elevated CPK when they treat them in the emergency room, as it will allow patients with dystrophy to be diagnosed earlier. In addition, CPK was used in this study mostly to search for patients with probable dystrophy or confirmed muscular dystrophy. 6. We summarized two paragraphs concerning inflammatory myopathies from the discussion section. 7. We moved a paragraph from the Results section to the Methods section to better explain how we performed the patient selection process. 8. We added missing prevalence from the study in a new paragraph in the Results section. 9. We added a new paragraph in the Conclusion section. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Prajnya Ranganath READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction Creatine phosphokinase (CPK) is an enzyme that catalyzes phosphocreatine to facilitate the release of the energy required by the muscle for its contraction. 1 This enzyme is widely distributed in all tissues with high-energy demand. Approximately, 70% of CPK is found in the musculoskeletal system, 20-30% in the cardiac muscle, and 5-10% in the nervous system. 2 CPK presents in three different molecular forms depending on the tissue: BB, MB, and MM. 2 Blood levels of CPK are mainly from the muscle MM isoenzyme. The blood concentration of CPK depends on multiple factors such as gender, race, age, muscle mass, and physical activity. 3 , 4 Normal values are: white female <= 325 IU/L, white male <= 504 IU/L, black female <= 621 IU/L, and black male <= 1200 IU/L. 5 In general, the term CPKAEMIA is considered when CPK levels are greater than 1.000 IU/L or 1.5 times the upper limit of normal. 5 For transient CPK elevations, multiple causes must always be ruled out in the initial diagnostic confrontation. Intense physical exercise, trauma, generalized tonic-clonic seizures, acute psychosis, systemic connective tissue diseases, renal or cardiac failure, viral diseases that cause myopathies such as influenza, coxsackie, adenovirus, prostate cancer, celiac disease, obstructive sleep apnea, moderate to severe hypothyroidism, drugs such as statins, fibrates, antiretrovirals, beta-blockers, clozapine, angiotensin II receptor antagonists, hydroxychloroquine, isotretinoin, and colchicine; neuromuscular diseases such as Guillain Barré, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, myopathy due to the use of corticosteroids, hyperthyroidism, collagen diseases, alcoholism, procedures such as intramuscular injections and electromyography have been described as possible etiologies. 6 – 12 Besides that, the most frequent causes of CPK elevation are genetic diseases such as muscular dystrophies, congenital myopathies, channelopathies, mitochondrial myopathies, and myotonic dystrophies, although exercise can also temporarily increase CPK levels due to rhabdomyolysis. 2 , 13 Muscular dystrophies are classified according to their genetic transmission mechanism, either autosomal dominant or recessive, and those linked to the X chromosome. It can also be done based on the structural and functional deficiency of the protein complex as dystrophinopathies (Duchenne muscular dystrophy and Becker), laminopathy (LGMD 1B and Emery dreifuss), sarcoglycanopathies (LGMD 2C, 2D, 2E, 2F), dysferlinopathies (LGMD 2B), calpainopathies (LGMD 2A), myotilinopathies (LGMD 1A), and caveolinopathies (LGMD 1C). 14 , 15 Dystrophies can affect different stages of life. Its onset depends on the type of dystrophy: congenital or adulthood, present between 20 and 30 years of age, and it can even have such mild clinical manifestations that consultations for the disease are made only until an older age. In some cases a phenomenon called “anticipation” may occur, that is, when the clinical manifestations may occur earlier in the children than in their parents; or spontaneous mutations, such as the Duchenne type, which occur in children without a family history of the disease. Regarding affected muscles, each muscular dystrophy compromises similar or different muscular types. Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophy affect striated and cardiac muscles with associated increased CPK levels between 10 and 50 times the upper limit of normal; facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy affects striated muscle and respiratory muscles with associated increased CPK levels between 1 and 10 times the upper limit of normal; Bethlem muscular dystrophy affects only striated muscle with associated increased CPK levels between 1 and 10 times the upper limit of normal; limb-girdle muscular dystrophy affects striated, cardiac and respiratory muscles with associated increased CPK levels between 1 and 50 times the upper limit of normal; Emery Dreifuss muscular dystrophy affects striated and cardiac muscles with associated elevated CPK levels from 1 to 10 times the upper limit of normal. Early clinical complications of CPK elevation include liver dysfunction and arrhythmias; late complications include disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and acute kidney injury (AKI). 13 Thanks to new advances in gene therapy, there are current trials targeting to restore damaged genes in different dystrophies (Duchenne, limb-girdle, and Emery Dreifuss). These new therapies use adeno-associated virus to infect damaged tissues and deliver a cDNA copy of the functional gene. The results have not been published out yet but there are early promising reports, with studies in mice having demonstrated therapeutic efficacy. 15 – 18 Less common muscular dystrophies are congenital myopathies such as myosin storage myopathy 7A, which is an autosomal dominant disease with a heterozygous mutation in the MYH7 gene. 19 It has phenotypic variability with an age onset ranging from early childhood to late adulthood. Affected individuals have proximal muscle weakness of the upper and lower limbs, and distal muscle weakness of the lower limbs, resulting in gait difficulties and scapular winging (scapuloperoneal myopathy). 19 The severity is also variable, and CPK levels may be normal or elevated. 19 The disease is usually slowly progressive and most patients remain ambulatory. Skeletal muscle biopsy can show a nonspecific myopathic pattern. 19 Lastly, acute viral myositis is another cause of elevation in CPK levels that could mask muscular dystrophies. According to Cardin et al, it constitutes a syndrome that generates musculoskeletal impairment after upper airway disorders that results in temporarily limited ambulation, muscle pain, and lower-limb weakness, especially in the calves and thighs. 20 The disease management is usually symptomatic of respiratory and musculoskeletal symptoms including analgesics or anti-inflammatory drugs. 20 Regarding the comments above, we aimed to establish clinical and molecular characteristics of patients with increased CPK levels and muscular dystrophies in our region to facilitate diagnosis and follow-up on patients with suspected muscular dystrophies. Methods Study design A cross-sectional study was made using a retrospective search of patients attended in Comfamiliar Risaralda between 2010 and 2021. The study included patients from both genders and all ages who presented with CPK levels greater than 500U/L, and diagnosis of polymyositis, myoclonus, myopathy, and muscular dystrophy. Patient selection process A database analysis was carried out from 2010 to 2022 of 5219 patients treated in a fourth-level care institution in the Eje Cafetero region. As shown in Figure 1 , 1949 patients were excluded with other causes of elevated CPK levels such as hypothyroidism, acute myocardial infarction, cardiac insufficiency, rhabdomyolysis, seizures, drugs including statins, fibrates, and nonclear causes. After reviewing medical records, 98 patients did not meet the inclusion criteria for the investigation due to other causes of CPK elevation such as drowning (submersion injuries), perinatal asphyxia, cranioencephalic trauma caused by a car accident, trauma caused by white weapons, and electrostatic discharge ( Figure 1 ). Figure 1. Patient selection diagram according to case definitions and study stage. The remaining 52 patients underwent medical consultation and 23 were excluded because some did not meet the clinical criteria for any muscular dystrophy but for other causes of transient elevation of CPK levels, and others manifested discontinuation in the study ( Table 1 ). Finally, the patients underwent a second medical consultation by a geneticist to corroborate and classify the remaining 29 patients. Table 1. Other causes of elevated CPK levels that we identified in the study. Characteristic N = 23 Other diagnoses 8 (34.7%) Myoclonies 3 (13%) Miositis 2 (8.6%) Brachydactyly cerebellar ataxia syndrome 1 (4.3%) Osteochondrodysplasias 1 (4.3%) Fragile x syndrome 1 (4.3%) Thrombotic microangiopathy 1 (4.3%) Systemic lupus erythematosus 1 (4.3%) Fibromyalgia 1 (4.3%) Myopathy generated by autoimmune pathology 1 (4.3%) Hypokalemic periodic paralysis 1 (4.3%) Sequel of neurological noxa 1 (4.3%) Radiculopathy 1 (4.3%) Data collection and Statistical analysis In an initial instance of the study, a retrospective institutional active search was made through text mining in laboratory databases for all CPK measures carried out by the Comfamiliar Risaralda laboratory between 2010 and 2021. After that, the results were purified and organized under the criteria of registered CPK elevation, and again the search language in databases was made to extract new confirmed or repeated diagnoses that could explain the CPKemia. Data collection was implemented through a study-specific case report form (CRF). A detailed data validation plan that identified missing data, out-of-range data and other data inconsistencies in the form of revision checking was implemented on the platform before the start of the study. The collected information was entered into the RedCAP platform, where the CRF was previously located with validation and automated fields if applicable. Discrepancies in the data were reported to the team as queries. Access to the database was restricted through password protection to authorized data management personnel. Descriptive statistics were obtained for numerical variables, including measures of central tendency such as mean and median. Descriptive statistics for categorical variables included a tabulation of frequencies with counts and percentages. The estimation of prevalences was carried out employing Bayesian inference since they allow a greater gain in precision in the estimation of parameters with values below 10%, as well as it was carried out utilizing a beta-binomial model under the binom package of R software. Statistical analyzes were also performed in R software. Ethical approval The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Comfamillar Risaralda Clinic (Approval number 0088; Approval date: May 16, 2022). All the participants gave informed consent for anonymous data usage. Results We found 29 patients with clinical muscular dystrophy in our hospital-based registry, with a mean CPK value of 3231.241, a standard deviation of 5019.543, and a maximum of 22670. We found a combined prevalence of all muscular dystrophies of 4.2 per 100.000 patients attended in our hospital base, Duchenne muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000, limb-girdle muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000, facioscapulohumeral dystrophy of 0.5 per 100.000, Bethem dystrophy, type 2 Emery Dreifuss muscular dystrophy, merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy and myosin storage disease of 0.1 per 100.000. Discussion Several studies have described the different types of muscular dystrophy. However, there is poor evidence analyzing multiple muscular dystrophies within the same population. This leads to heterogeneity in studies regarding prevalences, clinical manifestations, and a good genotype-phenotype correlation. In our study, we found patients with Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophy, facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy, limb-girdle muscular dystrophy, Emery Dreifus muscular dystrophy, merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy, and autosomal dominant congenital myopathy 7A ( Table 2 ). Therefore, to identify a patient with a particular type of disease, clinicians should follow a diagnostic sequence not only for differentiating muscular dystrophy from other inflammatory myopathies but also to discriminate the specific type. Table 2. Clinical classification of the muscular dystrophies regarding the patients of the study after CPK measurement and Molecular tests. N = 29 (%) Prevalence (× 1000) ** CrI95% * Bethem dystrophy 1 (3.4%) 0.28 0.02-0.89 Facioscapulohumeral dystrophy 5 (17.2%) 1.0 0.36-2.0 Unclassified dystrophy 2 (6.8%) NA NA Becker muscular dystrophy 3 (10.3%) 0.67 0.16-1.5 Limb-girdle muscular dystrophy 5 (17.2%) 1.0 0.36-2.0 Duchenne muscular dystrophy 7 (24.1%) 1.4 0.6-2.6 Type 2 Emery Dreifuss muscular dystrophy 1 (3.4%) 0.28 0.02-0.89 Merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy 1 (3.4%) 0.28 0.02-0.89 Myotonic dystrophy 2 (6.8%) 0.47 0.079-1.2 Autosomal dominant congenital myopathy 7A 1 (3.4%) 0.28 0.02-0.89 * CrI: Credibility Intervals were estimated by Bayesian inference using Beta functions as prior. ** Point Prevalence: It is a mean posterior distribution. In our study, we analyzed the clinical and molecular characteristics of 29 patients with muscular dystrophy in Colombia. According to Mercuri and Muntoni, the prevalence of Duchenne muscular dystrophy is 8-29 per 100 000 boys; Becker muscular dystrophy has a prevalence of 7-29 per 100 000 boys; limb-girdle muscular dystrophy has a prevalence of 0.8-5.7 per 100 000 inhabitants; myotonic dystrophy has an estimated prevalence of 10-6 per 100 000 men, followed by facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy with a prevalence of three per 100 000 men, and myosin storage disease with noncurrent reported prevalence. 14 We found a combined prevalence of all muscular dystrophies of 4.2 per 100.000 among patients treated in our hospital base, Duchenne muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000, limb-girdle muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000, facioscapulohumeral dystrophy of 0.5 per 100.000, Bethem dystrophy, type 2 Emery Dreifuss muscular dystrophy, merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy and myosin storage disease of 0.1 per 100.000. These prevalences are lower than those reported in the literature and can be explained due to a bias regarding the filter we used to find the patients. We included patients from both genders and all ages who presented with a diagnosis of polymyositis, myoclonus, myopathy, and muscular dystrophy. However, some other suspected cases could have been recorded with different diagnoses, due to misdiagnosis or underdiagnosis, leading to underestimation. Duchenne muscular dystrophy age onset of symptoms is in early childhood around the age of 5 years, it is rapidly progressive and most patients lose ambulation around 10-15 years old, leading them wheelchair dependent. 21 Becker muscular dystrophy symptoms can start around 10-20 years old but in some cases, permanent asymptomatic until adulthood even >30 years, and remain ambulant even until their 60s. 21 , 22 In our study, we found that most patients had similar features as previously reported in the literature. Three patients were revealed with the c.6439-?_6912+?del p.(Glu2146_Val2304del) mutation who presented with a mild phenotype of Becker muscular dystrophy. At the moment of consultation, they had a mean age of 48 years (SD 40-54). All of them presented with hyporeflexia, mild muscle weakness, age onset of symptoms between 10 and 20 years old, and any of the three patients were wheelchair dependant. Greer et al. reported this same mutation in a patient with Becker muscular dystrophy who lost ambulation by the age of 15 years. 23 They suggest that patients with apparently identical exonic deletions are almost certainly going to have different genomic breakpoints and therefore will be missing different intronic regions, and potentially, splicing motifs resulting in different phenotypes. 23 Vengalil et al. also identified that patients with deletions of exons 45-47 are clinically related to the development of cardiomyopathy and earlier wheelchair dependence. 24 Further studies analyzing genotype-phenotype correlation in patients with muscular dystrophy would be helpful to better understand the pathogenesis, and predict phenotypes. Facioscapulohumeral dystrophy has an onset around 10-20 years old. Still, there are some unusual cases where the symptoms are present at the moment of birth, and some others remain asymptomatic their whole life. By the age of 20 years, 50% of the cases have developed symptoms, and eventually, 20% of the affected require a wheelchair, which is consistent with our study where patients with facioscapulohumeral dystrophy developed symptoms after 20 years old. 25 In Bethlem muscular dystrophy, the symptoms can range from congenital to mid-adulthood, been the congenital cases extremely rare. 26 The progression is slow and more than 2/3 of the affected older than 50 years require supportive means (cane, crutches, wheelchair) for outdoor mobility. 27 This is consistent with our study where we found one patient with Bethlem muscular dystrophy who presented as a congenital case that also had supportive means for outdoor mobility. Limb-girdle muscular dystrophy is an extremely heterogeneous group. Over 30 distinct subtypes have been identified, in which the onset of symptoms is at any age with some severe congenital cases and some mild cases starting in adulthood; the severity is also variable. 28 As stated in the literature, we found four patients with variable phenotypes ranging from mild disease with onset of symptoms over 20 years old to more severe cases with early onset of symptoms in childhood. Emery Dreifuss muscular dystrophy onset of symptoms begins in the first two or three decades of life. 29 The progression is slow, and loss of ambulation can occur in the autosomal dominant variant but is rare in the X-linked variant. 30 We found one patient with Emery Dreifuss muscular dystrophy whose symptoms corresponded with those reported in the literature. Merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy is a severe type with symptoms present at the moment of birth, with neonatal profound hypotonia, poor spontaneous movements, and respiratory failure; 31 most affected children do not acquire independent walking. It has been reported that only 15% of individuals acquired independent ambulation, 32 and only a few patients gained the ability to walk with assistance but subsequently lost the ability. 33 In our study, we identified one patient with Merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy who presented with profound hypotonia since birth and was diagnosed at two months old with CPK levels and molecular test. Currently, this patient can adequately sit but has problems with gait. These features correspond with phenotypes previously reported in the literature but without respiratory compromise. We also found a patient with autosomal dominant congenital myopathy 7A with a phenotype that presented in early childhood at 14 months old, with significant proximal and distal muscle weakness. In addition, the patient presented with a severe restrictive pulmonary pattern, and a myopathic pattern in electromyography without cardiac alterations. Currently, at his adult age, this patient has proximal and distal quadriparesis and hypoesthesia of the left hemibody. These features correspond with the previously reported in the literature. On the other hand, 12 patients with muscular dystrophy remained unclassified despite their clinical suspicion and after undergoing molecular tests. As previously exposed, patients with similar exonic deletions are going to have different genomic breakpoints. The number of genetic alterations that can be involved in muscular dystrophies is huge. Therefore, performing a single molecular test sometimes is not enough to identify the specific mutation related to the phenotypic presentation of the patient. Table 3 shows a brief review of the clinical and paraclinical approach to the different types of muscular dystrophy. Table 4 shows the detailed classification of each type of muscular dystrophy. Barohn et al. propose a series of steps regarding the patient’s symptoms by establishing which muscle-related symptoms patients demonstrate; determining the temporal evolution of the symptoms; interrogating if there is a family history of a myopathic disorder; finding out if there are precipitating factors that trigger episodic weakness or stiffness; asking if there are associated systemic symptoms or signs; and lastly, identifying the distribution of Weakness. 34 After completing the 6 steps, clinicians could now attempt to classify a myopathic disorder according to the patterns of muscle weakness. The findings on the physical examination, particularly the distribution of muscle weakness, should provide additional information in determining the correct diagnosis. 34 Subsequently, CPK levels are extremely helpful for the evaluation of patients with a suspected myopathy. The CPK levels are usually elevated in most patients with muscle disease but may be normal in slowly progressive myopathies. 34 Depending on the degree of CPK levels, it can be useful in distinguishing different forms of muscular dystrophy. As in the case of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, CPK levels can be elevated from 10 to more than 100 times the upper limit of normal, whereas in Facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy, the CPK levels are expected to be elevated from 1 to 10 times the upper limit of normal. We also must rule out nonmyopathic factors that can alter CPK levels such as profound muscle wasting, corticosteroid administration, collagen diseases, alcoholism, or hyperthyroidism. 34 Later, we should look for electromyography and nerve conduction studies. These studies can help to distinguish primary neuropathic from myopathic disorders by confirming that the muscle is the correct site of the lesion and that weakness is not the result of an underlying motor neuron disease, neuropathy, or neuromuscular junction disorder. 34 However, their sensitivity and specificity are low. Normal results provide evidence of a nonsevere neuromuscular disorder. 5 A few years ago, if the electrodiagnostic features suggested a myopathic pattern, a muscle biopsy was recommended. Additionally, we can now diagnose muscular dystrophies through molecular tests without performing muscle biopsies in all suspected patients. Table 5 shows the patterns of muscular dystrophy applied to the 29 participants of the study. An adequate diagnosis is done on a clinical basis and confirmed by laboratory tests, muscle enzyme concentrations, autoantibodies, electromyography, and muscle biopsy. 35 Depending on the type of muscular dystrophy, some complications such as restrictive lung disease, cardiomyopathy, scoliosis, corticosteroid side effects, and psychosocial issues can generally lead professionals to focus only on the direct acute cause of the signs and symptoms and not to search for a long-term systemic etiology like muscular dystrophy. 36 Therefore, clinicians need to figure out that patients presenting with some acute diseases, especially in recurrent cases, might also be associated with muscular dystrophy to keep in mind. Study strengths and limitations The strengths of this study are the diagnostic sequence to classify muscular dystrophy, and the fact that this was the first study exploring multiple types of muscular dystrophy within the same population in this region. Regarding limitations, a bias in the filter we used to find the patients could have allowed for underestimation in some frequencies. Some prevalences that we found need confirmation in further studies. On the other hand, in our country patients do not generally have access to molecular tests, so we perform a clinical characterization based on CPK levels, electromyography, and physical examination. We hope in further studies to have the possibility of performing molecular confirmation as well. Conclusions Although muscular dystrophies consist of a heterogeneous group of neuromuscular diseases, there are still clinical and paraclinical features that can help physicians to detect any particular case and perform a good approach and follow-up. In our region, many patients with muscular dystrophy remain underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed, which in consequence it compromises their prognosis without adequate treatment. Therefore, our diagnostic sequence will facilitate physicians to identify any of the most frequent muscular dystrophies. Moreover, many patients with muscular dystrophies can remain without optimal treatment due to inaccurate diagnosis or confusion with other inflammatory myopathies such as polymyositis, dermatomyositis, and inclusion body myositis. 21 In this study, 13.1% of patients diagnosed these other myopathies ended with confirmed muscular dystrophy after performing a detailed revision of their clinical histories and re-consultation of such patients. For this reason, we suggest implementing at least a 6-month follow-up to rule out newly o persistently elevated CPK levels that might indicate a muscular dystrophy. Data availability Underlying data Zenodo: Diagnostic strategies for muscular dystrophies: a Cross-Sectional Study, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7992665 . 37 This project contains the following underlying data: • ProyectoDistrofiaMus_DATAv2.csv • Table 3 sequencing.xlsx • Table 4 muscular dystrophies.xlsx • Table 5 duchenne patients.xlsx Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0). References 1. Rowland, Willner, Cerri: Approaches to the membrane theory of muscular dystrophy. Muscular Dystrophy Adv. New Trends. 1980; 3 : 3–20. Publisher Full Text 2. Steccone MA, Cattani A, Imbelloni MI: Rabdomiólisis: causas y consecuencias de CPK elevada desde el laboratorio de análisis clínicos. Rev Bioquímica Patol Clínica. 2021 Apr 22; 85 (2): 43–50. 3. Nanji AA: Serum creatine kinase isoenzymes: A review. Muscle Nerve. 1983 Feb; 6 (2): 83–90. Publisher Full Text 4. Wong ET, Cobb C, Umehara MK, et al. : Heterogeneity of Serum Creatine Kinase Activity among Racial and Gender Groups of the Population. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 1983 May 1; 79 (5): 582–586. Publisher Full Text 5. Moghadam-Kia S, Oddis CV, Aggarwal R: Approach to asymptomatic creatine kinase elevation. Cleve. Clin. J. Med. 2016 Jan; 83 (1): 37–42. Publisher Full Text 6. Chesson AL, Kasarskis EJ, Small VW: Postictal Elevation of Serum Creatine Kinase Level. Arch. Neurol. 1983 May 1; 40 (5): 315–317. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 7. Noakes TD: Effect of Exercise on Serum Enzyme Activities in Humans. Sports Med. 1987; 4 (4): 245–267. Publisher Full Text 8. Siegel AJ, Silverman LM, Holman BL: Elevated creatine kinase MB isoenzyme levels in marathon runners. Normal myocardial scintigrams suggest noncardiac source. JAMA. 1981 Nov 6; 246 (18): 2049–2051. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 9. Hagberg M, Michaelson G, Ortelius A.: Serum creatine kinase as an indicator of local muscular strain in experimental and occupational work. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health. 1982 Oct; 50 (4): 377–386. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 10. Griffiths PD: Serum levels of ATP: Creatine phosphotransferase (creatine kinase). The normal range and effect of muscular activity. Clin. Chim. Acta. 1966 Apr; 13 (4): 413–420. Publisher Full Text 11. Núñez Gil IJ, Álvarez-Rodríguez E, Amérigo García MJ, et al. : Miositis viral aguda del adulto. An. Med. Interna. 2006 Feb; 23 (2): 98–98. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 12. Swash M, Schwartz MS, Carter ND, et al. : BENIGN X- LINKED MYOPATHY WITH ACANTHOCYTES (MCLEOD SYNDROME): ITS RELATIONSHIP TO X-LINKED MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY. Brain. 1983; 106 (3): 717–733. Publisher Full Text 13. Lippi G, Schena F, Ceriotti F: Diagnostic biomarkers of muscle injury and exertional rhabdomyolysis. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. CCLM. 2018 Dec 19; 57 (2): 175–182. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 14. Mercuri E, Muntoni F: Muscular dystrophies. Lancet. 2013 Mar; 381 (9869): 845–860. Publisher Full Text 15. Pozsgai E, Griffin D, Potter R, et al. : Unmet needs and evolving treatment for limb girdle muscular dystrophies. Neurodegener. Dis. Manag. 2021 Oct; 11 (5): 411–429. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 16. Duan D, Goemans N, Takeda S, et al. : Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers. 2021 Feb 18; 7 (1): 13. Publisher Full Text 17. Mercuri E, Bönnemann CG, Muntoni F: Muscular dystrophies. Lancet. 2019 Nov; 394 (10213): 2025–2038. Publisher Full Text 18. Waldrop MA, Flanigan KM: Update in Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophy. Curr. Opin. Neurol. 2019 Oct; 32 (5): 722–727. Publisher Full Text 19. Cassandra LK: CONGENITAL MYOPATHY 7A, MYOSIN STORAGE, AUTOSOMAL DOMINANT. CMYP7A; 2023 [cited 2023 Mar 31]. Reference Source 20. Cardin SP, Martin JG, Saad-Magalhães C: Clinical and laboratory description of a series of cases of acute viral myositis. J. Pediatr. 2015 Sep; 91 (5): 442–447. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 21. Darras BT, Urion DK, Ghosh PS: Dystrophinopathies.Adam MP, Everman DB, Mirzaa GM, et al. , editors. GeneReviews ® . Seattle (WA): University of Washington, Seattle; 1993 [cited 2023 Feb 3]. Reference Source 22. Yazaki M, Yoshida K, Nakamura A, et al. : Clinical Characteristics of Aged Becker Muscular Dystrophy Patients with Onset after 30 Years. Eur. Neurol. 1999; 42 (3): 145–149. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 23. Greer K, Mizzi K, Rice E, et al. : Pseudoexon activation increases phenotype severity in a Becker muscular dystrophy patient. Mol. Genet. Genomic Med. 2015 Jul; 3 (4): 320–326. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 24. Vengalil S, Preethish-Kumar V, Polavarapu K, et al. : Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and Becker Muscular Dystrophy Confirmed by Multiplex Ligation-Dependent Probe Amplification: Genotype-Phenotype Correlation in a Large Cohort. J. Clin. Neurol. 2017; 13 (1): 91–97. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 25. Preston MK, Tawil R, Wang LH: Facioscapulohumeral Muscular Dystrophy.Adam MP, Everman DB, Mirzaa GM, et al. , editors. GeneReviews ® . Seattle (WA): University of Washington, Seattle; 1993 [cited 2023 Feb 3]. Reference Source 26. Foley AR, Mohassel P, Donkervoort S, et al. : Collagen VI-Related Dystrophies.Adam MP, Everman DB, Mirzaa GM, et al. , editors. GeneReviews ® . Seattle (WA): University of Washington, Seattle; 1993 [cited 2023 Feb 3]. Reference Source 27. Jöbsis GJ, Keizers H, Vreijling JP, et al. : Type VI collagen mutations in Bethlem myopathy, an autosomal dominant myopathy with contractures. Nat. Genet. 1996 Sep; 14 (1): 113–115. Publisher Full Text 28. Murphy AP, Straub V: The Classification, Natural History and Treatment of the Limb Girdle Muscular Dystrophies. Lochmüller H, editor. J. Neuromuscul. Dis. 2015 Jul 22; 2 (s2): S7–S19. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 29. Bonne G, Leturcq F, Ben Yaou R: Emery-Dreifuss Muscular Dystrophy.Adam MP, Everman DB, Mirzaa GM, et al. , editors. GeneReviews ® . Seattle (WA): University of Washington, Seattle; 1993 [cited 2023 Feb 3]. Reference Source 30. Bonne G, Mercuri E, Muchir A, et al. : Clinical and molecular genetic spectrum of autosomal dominant Emery-Dreifuss muscular dystrophy due to mutations of the lamin A/C gene. Ann. Neurol. 2000 Aug; 48 (2): 170–180. PubMed Abstract | <a target="xrefwindow" id="d721925e1360" href="https://doi.org/10.1002/1531-8249(200008)48:2 Publisher Full Text 31. Jones KJ: The expanding phenotype of laminin alpha2 chain (merosin) abnormalities: case series and review. J. Med. Genet. 2001 Oct 1; 38 (10): 649–657. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 32. Geranmayeh F, Clement E, Feng LH, et al. : Genotype–phenotype correlation in a large population of muscular dystrophy patients with LAMA2 mutations. Neuromuscul. Disord. 2010 Apr; 20 (4): 241–250. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 33. Oliveira J, Parente Freixo J, Santos M, et al. : LAMA2 Muscular Dystrophy.Adam MP, Everman DB, Mirzaa GM, et al. , editors. GeneReviews ® . Seattle (WA): University of Washington, Seattle; 1993 [cited 2023 Feb 3]. Reference Source 34. Barohn RJ, Dimachkie MM, Jackson CE: A Pattern Recognition Approach to Patients with a Suspected Myopathy. Neurol. Clin. 2014 Aug; 32 (3): 569–593. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 35. Nava A, Orozco-Barocio G: Abordaje en el diagnóstico diferencial de las miopatías inflamatorias. Reumatol. Clínica. 2009 Nov; 5 : 32–34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 36. Yiu EM, Kornberg AJ: Duchenne muscular dystrophy. J. Paediatr. Child Health. 2015 Aug; 51 (8):759–764. Publisher Full Text 37. Estrada-Alvarez JM, Porras-Hurtado GL, Hanna FA: Diagnostic strategies for muscular dystrophies: a Cross-Sectional Study. [Data set]. F1000 Res (Version 1). Zenodo. 2023. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 03 Aug 2023 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Risaralda, Institucion Universitaria de Comfamiliar Risaralda, Pereira, Risaralda, 660003, Colombia 2 Antioquia, Fundacion Universitaria San Martin, Sabaneta, Colombia Franklin Hanna Rodriguez Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Jorge Mario Estrada-Alvarez Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software Juan Guillermo Murillo Roles: Visualization Gloria Liliana Porras-Hurtado Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Supervision, Validation Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (2) version 2 Revised Published: 04 Mar 2024, 12:930 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.132804.2 version 1 Published: 03 Aug 2023, 12:930 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.132804.1 Copyright © 2024 Hanna Rodriguez F et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Hanna Rodriguez F, Estrada-Alvarez JM, Guillermo Murillo J and Porras-Hurtado GL. Diagnostic strategies for muscular dystrophies: a cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :930 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.132804.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 04 Mar 2024 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Ranganath P. Reviewer Report For: Diagnostic strategies for muscular dystrophies: a cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :930 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.159475.r252398 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-930/v2#referee-response-252398 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 03 Apr 2024 Prajnya Ranganath , Department of Medical Genetics, Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, Telangana, India Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.159475.r252398 Thank you for sharing the revised manuscript. I have gone through the revisions and noted the response of the authors to the previous set of comments. Though the authors have made some modifications, the comments mentioned in the initial review (for the ... Continue reading READ ALL Thank you for sharing the revised manuscript. I have gone through the revisions and noted the response of the authors to the previous set of comments. Though the authors have made some modifications, the comments mentioned in the initial review (for the originally submitted manuscript) are applicable to the revised version also. In my opinion, the article requires further revisions. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Clinical Genetics; Genetic Neuromuscular Disorders I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Ranganath P. Reviewer Report For: Diagnostic strategies for muscular dystrophies: a cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :930 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.159475.r252398 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-930/v2#referee-response-252398 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 31 May 2024 Comfamiliar Risaralda , Risaralda, Institucion Universitaria de Comfamiliar Risaralda, Pereira, 660003, Colombia 31 May 2024 Author Response Thank you for sharing your comments. We would like to know if you could tell us what exactly are those further revisions or corrections that you suggest us to approach. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Thank you for sharing your comments. We would like to know if you could tell us what exactly are those further revisions or corrections that you suggest us to approach. Thank you for sharing your comments. We would like to know if you could tell us what exactly are those further revisions or corrections that you suggest us to approach. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 31 May 2024 Comfamiliar Risaralda , Risaralda, Institucion Universitaria de Comfamiliar Risaralda, Pereira, 660003, Colombia 31 May 2024 Author Response Thank you for sharing your comments. We would like to know if you could tell us what exactly are those further revisions or corrections that you suggest us to approach. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Thank you for sharing your comments. We would like to know if you could tell us what exactly are those further revisions or corrections that you suggest us to approach. Thank you for sharing your comments. We would like to know if you could tell us what exactly are those further revisions or corrections that you suggest us to approach. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 03 Aug 2023 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Ranganath P. Reviewer Report For: Diagnostic strategies for muscular dystrophies: a cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :930 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.145754.r204452 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-930/v1#referee-response-204452 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 22 Sep 2023 Prajnya Ranganath , Department of Medical Genetics, Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, Telangana, India Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.145754.r204452 The title is inappropriate. The study describes the spectrum of muscular dystrophies seen in a hospital-based set-up and the discussion is mostly focused on the utility of serum CPK. There is very little mention of other diagnostic ... Continue reading READ ALL The title is inappropriate. The study describes the spectrum of muscular dystrophies seen in a hospital-based set-up and the discussion is mostly focused on the utility of serum CPK. There is very little mention of other diagnostic strategies. Only 29 cases have been finally categorized as muscular dystrophies. The number is very small and it is a very heterogeneous group which includes dystrophinopathies, LGMD, myotonic dystrophy, congenital muscular dystrophy and FSHD. It is not clear how the authors have derived the population prevalence of the various muscular dystrophies based on a study done in a hospital setting/ hospital-based registry. As per Table 5, a significant number of patients (12 out of 29) do not have conclusive molecular test reports to confirm the diagnosis and to accurately establish the type of muscular dystrophy. The molecular reports, wherever available, which are mentioned, are mostly not as per standard variant notation guidelines. Elevation of serum CPK in muscular dystrophies and the different ranges of serum CPK expected in different types of muscular dystrophies are very well studied and well established and this study does not add anything novel to the existing knowledge about muscular dystrophies. Inflammatory myopathies, viral myositis and other acquired causes of muscle involvement are discussed in length - this does not appear to be very relevant to the topic. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? No Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? No Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Clinical Genetics; Genetic Neuromuscular Disorders I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Ranganath P. Reviewer Report For: Diagnostic strategies for muscular dystrophies: a cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :930 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.145754.r204452 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-930/v1#referee-response-204452 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 04 Mar 2024 Comfamiliar Risaralda , Risaralda, Institucion Universitaria de Comfamiliar Risaralda, Pereira, 660003, Colombia 04 Mar 2024 Author Response Dear editor-in-Chief: Thank you for reviewing our manuscript titled “ Diagnostic strategies for muscular dystrophies: a cross-sectional study ". We thank the reviewers for their overall positive comments and for the ... Continue reading Dear editor-in-Chief: Thank you for reviewing our manuscript titled “ Diagnostic strategies for muscular dystrophies: a cross-sectional study ". We thank the reviewers for their overall positive comments and for the pertinent points they have raised. The recommendations were considered and incorporated into the new version of the manuscript. Please find attached our responses to the comments point-by-point. We have indicated clearly in each case the revisions to the manuscript that address their questions and suggestions. We feel that the manuscript has improved significantly from their critique, and we hope that you will find it acceptable now for publication in F1000Research . Yours sincerely, EIC comments: 1. The title is inappropriate. The study describes the spectrum of muscular dystrophies seen in a hospital-based set-up and the discussion is mostly focused on the utility of serum CPK. There is very little mention of other diagnostic strategies. Reply: We greatly appreciate the EIC comments. Following your suggestions, we reviewed the discussion again so that the types of dystrophies were clear. 2. Only 29 cases have been finally categorized as muscular dystrophies. The number is very small and it is a very heterogeneous group which includes dystrophinopathies, LGMD, myotonic dystrophy, congenital muscular dystrophy and FSHD. Reply: We greatly appreciate the EIC comments. Indeed, we analyzed a base of 750.000 users treated in a reference hospital in central-western Colombia that has an average of 2 million inhabitants. Only 29 cases had these diagnoses according to elevated CPK levels and diagnoses with probable dystrophy. 3. It is not clear how the authors have derived the population prevalence of the various muscular dystrophies based on a study done in a hospital setting/ hospital-based registry. Reply: We greatly appreciate the EIC comments. The prevalences reported in this study are related to a population of patients who were tested for multiple indications including CPK levels. Therefore, the underlying population for the estimation was this group of patients who consulted to our institution. Thus, the annotation regarding population prevalence is valid, and it may be a translation error to report prevalence per 100,000 inhabitants. Due to limitations of the study, we cannot talk of a population prevalence but rather of a hospital prevalence. We also have a related paragraph in the discussion section that explains how we searched for the population: “These prevalences are lower than those reported in the literature and can be explained due to a bias regarding the filter we used to find the patients. We included patients from both genders and all ages who presented with a diagnosis of polymyositis, myoclonus, myopathy, and muscular dystrophy. However, some other suspected cases could have been recorded with different diagnoses, due to misdiagnosis or underdiagnosis, leading to underestimation.” The corrections were made in the following way in the discussion section: “We found a combined prevalence of all muscular dystrophies of 4.2 per 100.000 habitants among patients treated in our hospital base, Duchenne muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000 habitants, limb-girdle muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000 habitants, facioscapulohumeral dystrophy of 0.5 per 100.000 habitants, Bethem dystrophy, type 2 Emery Dreifuss muscular dystrophy, merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy and myosin storage disease of 0.1 per 100.000 .” 4. As per Table 5, a significant number of patients (12 out of 29) do not have conclusive molecular test reports to confirm the diagnosis and to accurately establish the type of muscular dystrophy. The molecular reports, wherever available, which are mentioned, are mostly not as per standard variant notation guidelines. Reply: We greatly appreciate the EIC comments. Indeed, patients in our country do not generally have access to molecular tests, so we perform a clinical characterization based on CPK levels, electromyography, and physical examination. We hope in further studies to have the possibility of performing molecular confirmation. 5. Elevation of serum CPK in muscular dystrophies and the different ranges of serum CPK expected in different types of muscular dystrophies are very well studied and well established and this study does not add anything novel to the existing knowledge about muscular dystrophies. Reply: We greatly appreciate the EIC comments. You are right, we do not have anything novel to the existing knowledge about muscular dystrophies, but it is considered for general physicians to have a broad perspective and the different causes of an elevated CPK when they treat them in the emergency room, as it will allow patients with dystrophy to be diagnosed earlier. In addition, CPK was used in this study mostly to search for patients with probable dystrophy or confirmed muscular dystrophy. 6. Inflammatory myopathies, viral myositis and other acquired causes of muscle involvement are discussed in length - this does not appear to be very relevant to the topic. Reply: We greatly appreciate the EIC comments. You are right, two paragraphs concerning inflammatory myopathies from the discussion section were summarized in the following way: “Frequently, many patients with muscular dystrophies can remain without optimal treatment due to confusion with other inflammatory myopathies such as polymyositis, dermatomyositis, and inclusion body myositis. 21 In this study, 13.1% of patients diagnosed these other myopathies ended with confirmed muscular dystrophy after performing a detailed revision of their clinical histories and re-consultation of such patients. At least a 6-month follow-up should be implemented to rule out newly o persistently elevated CPK levels that might suggest a muscular dystrophy. ” Additional changes: 1. According to your comments, we decided to implement a few other changes to the manuscript. In the Methods section, we would like to add the following paragraphs: Study design A cross-sectional study was made using a retrospective search of patients attended in Comfamiliar Risaralda between 2010 and 2021. The study included patients from both genders and all ages who presented with CPK levels greater than 500U/L, and diagnosis of polymyositis, myoclonus, myopathy, and muscular dystrophy. Patient selection process See linked image. A database analysis was carried out from 2010 to 2022 of 5219 patients treated in a fourth-level care institution in the Eje Cafetero region. As shown in Figure 1, 1949 patients were excluded with other causes of elevated CPK levels such as hypothyroidism, acute myocardial infarction, cardiac insufficiency, rhabdomyolysis, seizures, drugs including statins, fibrates, and nonclear causes. After reviewing medical records, 98 patients did not meet the inclusion criteria for the investigation due to other causes of CPK elevation such as drowning (submersion injuries), perinatal asphyxia, cranioencephalic trauma caused by a car accident, trauma caused by white weapons, and electrostatic discharge ( Figure 1 ). The remaining 52 patients underwent medical consultation and 23 were excluded because some did not meet the clinical criteria for any muscular dystrophy but for other causes of transient elevation of CPK levels, and others manifested discontinuation in the study ( Table 1 ). Finally, the patients underwent a second medical consultation by a geneticist to corroborate and classify the remaining 29 patients. *Insert Table 1 Data collection and Statistical analysis In an initial instance of the study, a retrospective institutional active search was made through text mining in laboratory databases for all CPK measures carried out by the Comfamiliar Risaralda laboratory between 2010 and 2021. After that, the results were purified and organized under the criteria of registered CPK elevation, and again the search language in databases was made to extract new confirmed or repeated diagnoses that could explain the CPKemia. Data collection was implemented through a study-specific case report form (CRF). A detailed data validation plan that identified missing data, out-of-range data and other data inconsistencies in the form of revision checking was implemented on the platform before the start of the study. The collected information was entered into the RedCAP platform, where the CRF was previously located with validation and automated fields if applicable. Discrepancies in the data were reported to the team as queries. Access to the database was restricted through password protection to authorized data management personnel. Descriptive statistics were obtained for numerical variables, including measures of central tendency such as mean and median. Descriptive statistics for categorical variables included a tabulation of frequencies with counts and percentages. The estimation of prevalences was carried out employing Bayesian inference since they allow a greater gain in precision in the estimation of parameters with values below 10%, as well as it was carried out utilizing a beta-binomial model under the binom package of R software. Statistical analyzes were also performed in R software. 2. According to your comments, we decided to implement a few other changes. In the Results section, we would like to add the following paragraphs: Results We found 29 patients with clinical muscular dystrophy in our hospital-based registry, with a mean CPK value of 3231.241, a standard deviation of 5019.543, and a maximum of 22670. We found a combined prevalence of all muscular dystrophies of 4.2 per 100.000 patients attended in our hospital base, Duchenne muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000, limb-girdle muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000, facioscapulohumeral dystrophy of 0.5 per 100.000, Bethem dystrophy, type 2 Emery Dreifuss muscular dystrophy, merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy and myosin storage disease of 0.1 per 100.000. 3. According to your comments, we decided to implement a few other changes. In the Discussion section, we would like to add the following paragraphs: Discussion Several studies have described the different types of muscular dystrophy. However, there is poor evidence analyzing multiple muscular dystrophies within the same population. This leads to heterogeneity in studies regarding prevalences, clinical manifestations, and a good genotype-phenotype correlation. In our study, we found patients with Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophy, facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy, limb-girdle muscular dystrophy, Emery Dreifus muscular dystrophy, merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy, and autosomal dominant congenital myopathy 7A ( Table 2 ). Therefore, to identify a patient with a particular type of disease, clinicians should follow a diagnostic sequence not only for differentiating muscular dystrophy from other inflammatory myopathies but also to discriminate the specific type. *Insert Table 2 In our study, we analyzed the clinical and molecular characteristics of 29 patients with muscular dystrophy in Colombia. According to Mercuri and Muntoni, the prevalence of Duchenne muscular dystrophy is 8-29 per 100 000 boys; Becker muscular dystrophy has a prevalence of 7-29 per 100 000 boys; limb-girdle muscular dystrophy has a prevalence of 0.8-5.7 per 100 000 inhabitants; myotonic dystrophy has an estimated prevalence of 10-6 per 100 000 men, followed by facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy with a prevalence of three per 100 000 men, and myosin storage disease with noncurrent reported prevalence. 14 We found a combined prevalence of all muscular dystrophies of 4.2 per 100.000 among patients treated in our hospital base, Duchenne muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000, limb-girdle muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000, facioscapulohumeral dystrophy of 0.5 per 100.000, Bethem dystrophy, type 2 Emery Dreifuss muscular dystrophy, merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy and myosin storage disease of 0.1 per 100.000. These prevalences are lower than those reported in the literature and can be explained due to a bias regarding the filter we used to find the patients. We included patients from both genders and all ages who presented with a diagnosis of polymyositis, myoclonus, myopathy, and muscular dystrophy. However, some other suspected cases could have been recorded with different diagnoses, due to misdiagnosis or underdiagnosis, leading to underestimation. Non-diagnosed patients with muscular dystrophy and associated complications can also dissuade physicians from diagnosing adequately. Depending on the type of muscular dystrophy, some complications such as restrictive lung disease, cardiomyopathy, scoliosis, corticosteroid side effects, and psychosocial issues can generally lead professionals to focus only on the direct acute cause of the signs and symptoms and not to search for a long-term systemic etiology like muscular dystrophy. 22 Therefore, clinicians need to figure out that patients presenting with some acute diseases, especially in recurrent cases, might also be associated with muscular dystrophy to keep in mind. Duchenne muscular dystrophy age onset of symptoms is in early childhood around the age of 5 years, it is rapidly progressive and most patients lose ambulation around 10-15 years old, leading them wheelchair dependent. 23 Becker muscular dystrophy symptoms can start around 10-20 years old but in some cases, permanent asymptomatic until adulthood even >30 years, and remain ambulant even until their 60s. 23 , 24 In our study, we found that most patients had similar features as previously reported in the literature. Three patients were revealed with the c.6439-?_6912+?del p.(Glu2146_Val2304del) mutation who presented with a mild phenotype of Becker muscular dystrophy. At the moment of consultation, they had a mean age of 48 years (SD 40-54). All of them presented with hyporeflexia, mild muscle weakness, age onset of symptoms between 10 and 20 years old, and any of the three patients were wheelchair dependant. Greer et al. reported this same mutation in a patient with Becker muscular dystrophy who lost ambulation by the age of 15 years. 25 They suggest that patients with apparently identical exonic deletions are almost certainly going to have different genomic breakpoints and therefore will be missing different intronic regions, and potentially, splicing motifs resulting in different phenotypes. 25 Vengalil et al. also identified that patients with deletions of exons 45-47 are clinically related to the development of cardiomyopathy and earlier wheelchair dependence. 26 Further studies analyzing genotype-phenotype correlation in patients with muscular dystrophy would be helpful to better understand the pathogenesis, and predict phenotypes. Facioscapulohumeral dystrophy has an onset around 10-20 years old. Still, there are some unusual cases where the symptoms are present at the moment of birth, and some others remain asymptomatic their whole life. By the age of 20 years, 50% of the cases have developed symptoms, and eventually, 20% of the affected require a wheelchair, which is consistent with our study where patients with facioscapulohumeral dystrophy developed symptoms after 20 years old. 27 In Bethlem muscular dystrophy, the symptoms can range from congenital to mid-adulthood, been the congenital cases extremely rare. 28 The progression is slow and more than 2/3 of the affected older than 50 years require supportive means (cane, crutches, wheelchair) for outdoor mobility. 29 This is consistent with our study where we found one patient with Bethlem muscular dystrophy who presented as a congenital case that also had supportive means for outdoor mobility. Limb-girdle muscular dystrophy is an extremely heterogeneous group. Over 30 distinct subtypes have been identified, in which the onset of symptoms is at any age with some severe congenital cases and some mild cases starting in adulthood; the severity is also variable. 30 As stated in the literature, we found four patients with variable phenotypes ranging from mild disease with onset of symptoms over 20 years old to more severe cases with early onset of symptoms in childhood. Emery Dreifuss muscular dystrophy onset of symptoms begins in the first two or three decades of life. 31 The progression is slow, and loss of ambulation can occur in the autosomal dominant variant but is rare in the X-linked variant. 32 We found one patient with Emery Dreifuss muscular dystrophy whose symptoms corresponded with those reported in the literature. Merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy is a severe type with symptoms present at the moment of birth, with neonatal profound hypotonia, poor spontaneous movements, and respiratory failure; 33 most affected children do not acquire independent walking. It has been reported that only 15% of individuals acquired independent ambulation, 34 and only a few patients gained the ability to walk with assistance but subsequently lost the ability. 35 In our study, we identified one patient with Merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy who presented with profound hypotonia since birth and was diagnosed at two months old with CPK levels and molecular test. Currently, this patient can adequately sit but has problems with gait. These features correspond with phenotypes previously reported in the literature but without respiratory compromise. We also found a patient with autosomal dominant congenital myopathy 7A with a phenotype that presented in early childhood at 14 months old, with significant proximal and distal muscle weakness. In addition, the patient presented with a severe restrictive pulmonary pattern, and a myopathic pattern in electromyography without cardiac alterations. Currently, at his adult age, this patient has proximal and distal quadriparesis and hypoesthesia of the left hemibody. These features correspond with the previously reported in the literature. On the other hand, 12 patients with muscular dystrophy remained unclassified despite their clinical suspicion and after undergoing molecular tests. As previously exposed, patients with similar exonic deletions are going to have different genomic breakpoints. The number of genetic alterations that can be involved in muscular dystrophies is huge. Therefore, performing a single molecular test sometimes is not enough to identify the specific mutation related to the phenotypic presentation of the patient. We made Table 3 as a tool that shows a brief review of the clinical and paraclinical approach to the different types of muscular dystrophy. Table 4 shows the detailed classification of each type of muscular dystrophy. Barohn et al. propose a series of steps regarding the patient’s symptoms by establishing which muscle-related symptoms patients demonstrate; determining the temporal evolution of the symptoms; interrogating if there is a family history of a myopathic disorder; finding out if there are precipitating factors that trigger episodic weakness or stiffness; asking if there are associated systemic symptoms or signs; and lastly, identifying the distribution of Weakness. 36 After completing the 6 steps, clinicians could now attempt to classify a myopathic disorder according to the patterns of muscle weakness. The findings on the physical examination, particularly the distribution of muscle weakness, should provide additional information in determining the correct diagnosis. 36 Subsequently, CPK levels are extremely helpful for the evaluation of patients with a suspected myopathy. The CPK levels are usually elevated in most patients with muscle disease but may be normal in slowly progressive myopathies. 36 Depending on the degree of CPK levels, it can be useful in distinguishing different forms of muscular dystrophy. As in the case of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, CPK levels can be elevated from 10 to more than 100 times the upper limit of normal, whereas in Facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy, the CPK levels are expected to be elevated from 1 to 10 times the upper limit of normal. We also must rule out nonmyopathic factors that can alter CPK levels such as profound muscle wasting, corticosteroid administration, collagen diseases, alcoholism, or hyperthyroidism. 36 Later, we should look for electromyography and nerve conduction studies. These studies can help to distinguish primary neuropathic from myopathic disorders by confirming that the muscle is the correct site of the lesion and that weakness is not the result of an underlying motor neuron disease, neuropathy, or neuromuscular junction disorder. 36 However, their sensitivity and specificity are low. Normal results provide evidence of a nonsevere neuromuscular disorder. 5 A few years ago, if the electrodiagnostic features suggested a myopathic pattern, a muscle biopsy was recommended. Additionally, we can now diagnose muscular dystrophies through molecular tests without performing muscle biopsies in all suspected patients. Table 5 shows the patterns of muscular dystrophy applied to the 29 participants of the study. Patients in our country do not generally have access to molecular tests, so we perform a clinical characterization based on CPK levels, electromyography, and physical examination. We hope in further studies to have the possibility of performing molecular confirmation. Conclusions Although muscular dystrophies consist of a heterogeneous group of neuromuscular diseases, there are still clinical and paraclinical features that can help physicians to detect any case and perform a good approach and follow-up. In our region, many patients with muscular dystrophy remain underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed, which in consequence it compromises their prognosis without adequate treatment. Therefore, our diagnostic sequence will facilitate physicians to identify any of the most frequent muscular dystrophies. Moreover, many patients with muscular dystrophies can remain without optimal treatment due to confusion with other inflammatory myopathies such as polymyositis, dermatomyositis, and inclusion body myositis. 21 In this study, 13.1% of patients diagnosed these other myopathies ended with confirmed muscular dystrophy after performing a detailed revision of their clinical histories and re-consultation of such patients. For this reason, we suggest implementing at least a 6-month follow-up to rule out newly o persistently elevated CPK levels that might indicate a muscular dystrophy. Dear editor-in-Chief: Thank you for reviewing our manuscript titled “ Diagnostic strategies for muscular dystrophies: a cross-sectional study ". We thank the reviewers for their overall positive comments and for the pertinent points they have raised. The recommendations were considered and incorporated into the new version of the manuscript. Please find attached our responses to the comments point-by-point. We have indicated clearly in each case the revisions to the manuscript that address their questions and suggestions. We feel that the manuscript has improved significantly from their critique, and we hope that you will find it acceptable now for publication in F1000Research . Yours sincerely, EIC comments: 1. The title is inappropriate. The study describes the spectrum of muscular dystrophies seen in a hospital-based set-up and the discussion is mostly focused on the utility of serum CPK. There is very little mention of other diagnostic strategies. Reply: We greatly appreciate the EIC comments. Following your suggestions, we reviewed the discussion again so that the types of dystrophies were clear. 2. Only 29 cases have been finally categorized as muscular dystrophies. The number is very small and it is a very heterogeneous group which includes dystrophinopathies, LGMD, myotonic dystrophy, congenital muscular dystrophy and FSHD. Reply: We greatly appreciate the EIC comments. Indeed, we analyzed a base of 750.000 users treated in a reference hospital in central-western Colombia that has an average of 2 million inhabitants. Only 29 cases had these diagnoses according to elevated CPK levels and diagnoses with probable dystrophy. 3. It is not clear how the authors have derived the population prevalence of the various muscular dystrophies based on a study done in a hospital setting/ hospital-based registry. Reply: We greatly appreciate the EIC comments. The prevalences reported in this study are related to a population of patients who were tested for multiple indications including CPK levels. Therefore, the underlying population for the estimation was this group of patients who consulted to our institution. Thus, the annotation regarding population prevalence is valid, and it may be a translation error to report prevalence per 100,000 inhabitants. Due to limitations of the study, we cannot talk of a population prevalence but rather of a hospital prevalence. We also have a related paragraph in the discussion section that explains how we searched for the population: “These prevalences are lower than those reported in the literature and can be explained due to a bias regarding the filter we used to find the patients. We included patients from both genders and all ages who presented with a diagnosis of polymyositis, myoclonus, myopathy, and muscular dystrophy. However, some other suspected cases could have been recorded with different diagnoses, due to misdiagnosis or underdiagnosis, leading to underestimation.” The corrections were made in the following way in the discussion section: “We found a combined prevalence of all muscular dystrophies of 4.2 per 100.000 habitants among patients treated in our hospital base, Duchenne muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000 habitants, limb-girdle muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000 habitants, facioscapulohumeral dystrophy of 0.5 per 100.000 habitants, Bethem dystrophy, type 2 Emery Dreifuss muscular dystrophy, merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy and myosin storage disease of 0.1 per 100.000 .” 4. As per Table 5, a significant number of patients (12 out of 29) do not have conclusive molecular test reports to confirm the diagnosis and to accurately establish the type of muscular dystrophy. The molecular reports, wherever available, which are mentioned, are mostly not as per standard variant notation guidelines. Reply: We greatly appreciate the EIC comments. Indeed, patients in our country do not generally have access to molecular tests, so we perform a clinical characterization based on CPK levels, electromyography, and physical examination. We hope in further studies to have the possibility of performing molecular confirmation. 5. Elevation of serum CPK in muscular dystrophies and the different ranges of serum CPK expected in different types of muscular dystrophies are very well studied and well established and this study does not add anything novel to the existing knowledge about muscular dystrophies. Reply: We greatly appreciate the EIC comments. You are right, we do not have anything novel to the existing knowledge about muscular dystrophies, but it is considered for general physicians to have a broad perspective and the different causes of an elevated CPK when they treat them in the emergency room, as it will allow patients with dystrophy to be diagnosed earlier. In addition, CPK was used in this study mostly to search for patients with probable dystrophy or confirmed muscular dystrophy. 6. Inflammatory myopathies, viral myositis and other acquired causes of muscle involvement are discussed in length - this does not appear to be very relevant to the topic. Reply: We greatly appreciate the EIC comments. You are right, two paragraphs concerning inflammatory myopathies from the discussion section were summarized in the following way: “Frequently, many patients with muscular dystrophies can remain without optimal treatment due to confusion with other inflammatory myopathies such as polymyositis, dermatomyositis, and inclusion body myositis. 21 In this study, 13.1% of patients diagnosed these other myopathies ended with confirmed muscular dystrophy after performing a detailed revision of their clinical histories and re-consultation of such patients. At least a 6-month follow-up should be implemented to rule out newly o persistently elevated CPK levels that might suggest a muscular dystrophy. ” Additional changes: 1. According to your comments, we decided to implement a few other changes to the manuscript. In the Methods section, we would like to add the following paragraphs: Study design A cross-sectional study was made using a retrospective search of patients attended in Comfamiliar Risaralda between 2010 and 2021. The study included patients from both genders and all ages who presented with CPK levels greater than 500U/L, and diagnosis of polymyositis, myoclonus, myopathy, and muscular dystrophy. Patient selection process See linked image. A database analysis was carried out from 2010 to 2022 of 5219 patients treated in a fourth-level care institution in the Eje Cafetero region. As shown in Figure 1, 1949 patients were excluded with other causes of elevated CPK levels such as hypothyroidism, acute myocardial infarction, cardiac insufficiency, rhabdomyolysis, seizures, drugs including statins, fibrates, and nonclear causes. After reviewing medical records, 98 patients did not meet the inclusion criteria for the investigation due to other causes of CPK elevation such as drowning (submersion injuries), perinatal asphyxia, cranioencephalic trauma caused by a car accident, trauma caused by white weapons, and electrostatic discharge ( Figure 1 ). The remaining 52 patients underwent medical consultation and 23 were excluded because some did not meet the clinical criteria for any muscular dystrophy but for other causes of transient elevation of CPK levels, and others manifested discontinuation in the study ( Table 1 ). Finally, the patients underwent a second medical consultation by a geneticist to corroborate and classify the remaining 29 patients. *Insert Table 1 Data collection and Statistical analysis In an initial instance of the study, a retrospective institutional active search was made through text mining in laboratory databases for all CPK measures carried out by the Comfamiliar Risaralda laboratory between 2010 and 2021. After that, the results were purified and organized under the criteria of registered CPK elevation, and again the search language in databases was made to extract new confirmed or repeated diagnoses that could explain the CPKemia. Data collection was implemented through a study-specific case report form (CRF). A detailed data validation plan that identified missing data, out-of-range data and other data inconsistencies in the form of revision checking was implemented on the platform before the start of the study. The collected information was entered into the RedCAP platform, where the CRF was previously located with validation and automated fields if applicable. Discrepancies in the data were reported to the team as queries. Access to the database was restricted through password protection to authorized data management personnel. Descriptive statistics were obtained for numerical variables, including measures of central tendency such as mean and median. Descriptive statistics for categorical variables included a tabulation of frequencies with counts and percentages. The estimation of prevalences was carried out employing Bayesian inference since they allow a greater gain in precision in the estimation of parameters with values below 10%, as well as it was carried out utilizing a beta-binomial model under the binom package of R software. Statistical analyzes were also performed in R software. 2. According to your comments, we decided to implement a few other changes. In the Results section, we would like to add the following paragraphs: Results We found 29 patients with clinical muscular dystrophy in our hospital-based registry, with a mean CPK value of 3231.241, a standard deviation of 5019.543, and a maximum of 22670. We found a combined prevalence of all muscular dystrophies of 4.2 per 100.000 patients attended in our hospital base, Duchenne muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000, limb-girdle muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000, facioscapulohumeral dystrophy of 0.5 per 100.000, Bethem dystrophy, type 2 Emery Dreifuss muscular dystrophy, merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy and myosin storage disease of 0.1 per 100.000. 3. According to your comments, we decided to implement a few other changes. In the Discussion section, we would like to add the following paragraphs: Discussion Several studies have described the different types of muscular dystrophy. However, there is poor evidence analyzing multiple muscular dystrophies within the same population. This leads to heterogeneity in studies regarding prevalences, clinical manifestations, and a good genotype-phenotype correlation. In our study, we found patients with Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophy, facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy, limb-girdle muscular dystrophy, Emery Dreifus muscular dystrophy, merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy, and autosomal dominant congenital myopathy 7A ( Table 2 ). Therefore, to identify a patient with a particular type of disease, clinicians should follow a diagnostic sequence not only for differentiating muscular dystrophy from other inflammatory myopathies but also to discriminate the specific type. *Insert Table 2 In our study, we analyzed the clinical and molecular characteristics of 29 patients with muscular dystrophy in Colombia. According to Mercuri and Muntoni, the prevalence of Duchenne muscular dystrophy is 8-29 per 100 000 boys; Becker muscular dystrophy has a prevalence of 7-29 per 100 000 boys; limb-girdle muscular dystrophy has a prevalence of 0.8-5.7 per 100 000 inhabitants; myotonic dystrophy has an estimated prevalence of 10-6 per 100 000 men, followed by facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy with a prevalence of three per 100 000 men, and myosin storage disease with noncurrent reported prevalence. 14 We found a combined prevalence of all muscular dystrophies of 4.2 per 100.000 among patients treated in our hospital base, Duchenne muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000, limb-girdle muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000, facioscapulohumeral dystrophy of 0.5 per 100.000, Bethem dystrophy, type 2 Emery Dreifuss muscular dystrophy, merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy and myosin storage disease of 0.1 per 100.000. These prevalences are lower than those reported in the literature and can be explained due to a bias regarding the filter we used to find the patients. We included patients from both genders and all ages who presented with a diagnosis of polymyositis, myoclonus, myopathy, and muscular dystrophy. However, some other suspected cases could have been recorded with different diagnoses, due to misdiagnosis or underdiagnosis, leading to underestimation. Non-diagnosed patients with muscular dystrophy and associated complications can also dissuade physicians from diagnosing adequately. Depending on the type of muscular dystrophy, some complications such as restrictive lung disease, cardiomyopathy, scoliosis, corticosteroid side effects, and psychosocial issues can generally lead professionals to focus only on the direct acute cause of the signs and symptoms and not to search for a long-term systemic etiology like muscular dystrophy. 22 Therefore, clinicians need to figure out that patients presenting with some acute diseases, especially in recurrent cases, might also be associated with muscular dystrophy to keep in mind. Duchenne muscular dystrophy age onset of symptoms is in early childhood around the age of 5 years, it is rapidly progressive and most patients lose ambulation around 10-15 years old, leading them wheelchair dependent. 23 Becker muscular dystrophy symptoms can start around 10-20 years old but in some cases, permanent asymptomatic until adulthood even >30 years, and remain ambulant even until their 60s. 23 , 24 In our study, we found that most patients had similar features as previously reported in the literature. Three patients were revealed with the c.6439-?_6912+?del p.(Glu2146_Val2304del) mutation who presented with a mild phenotype of Becker muscular dystrophy. At the moment of consultation, they had a mean age of 48 years (SD 40-54). All of them presented with hyporeflexia, mild muscle weakness, age onset of symptoms between 10 and 20 years old, and any of the three patients were wheelchair dependant. Greer et al. reported this same mutation in a patient with Becker muscular dystrophy who lost ambulation by the age of 15 years. 25 They suggest that patients with apparently identical exonic deletions are almost certainly going to have different genomic breakpoints and therefore will be missing different intronic regions, and potentially, splicing motifs resulting in different phenotypes. 25 Vengalil et al. also identified that patients with deletions of exons 45-47 are clinically related to the development of cardiomyopathy and earlier wheelchair dependence. 26 Further studies analyzing genotype-phenotype correlation in patients with muscular dystrophy would be helpful to better understand the pathogenesis, and predict phenotypes. Facioscapulohumeral dystrophy has an onset around 10-20 years old. Still, there are some unusual cases where the symptoms are present at the moment of birth, and some others remain asymptomatic their whole life. By the age of 20 years, 50% of the cases have developed symptoms, and eventually, 20% of the affected require a wheelchair, which is consistent with our study where patients with facioscapulohumeral dystrophy developed symptoms after 20 years old. 27 In Bethlem muscular dystrophy, the symptoms can range from congenital to mid-adulthood, been the congenital cases extremely rare. 28 The progression is slow and more than 2/3 of the affected older than 50 years require supportive means (cane, crutches, wheelchair) for outdoor mobility. 29 This is consistent with our study where we found one patient with Bethlem muscular dystrophy who presented as a congenital case that also had supportive means for outdoor mobility. Limb-girdle muscular dystrophy is an extremely heterogeneous group. Over 30 distinct subtypes have been identified, in which the onset of symptoms is at any age with some severe congenital cases and some mild cases starting in adulthood; the severity is also variable. 30 As stated in the literature, we found four patients with variable phenotypes ranging from mild disease with onset of symptoms over 20 years old to more severe cases with early onset of symptoms in childhood. Emery Dreifuss muscular dystrophy onset of symptoms begins in the first two or three decades of life. 31 The progression is slow, and loss of ambulation can occur in the autosomal dominant variant but is rare in the X-linked variant. 32 We found one patient with Emery Dreifuss muscular dystrophy whose symptoms corresponded with those reported in the literature. Merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy is a severe type with symptoms present at the moment of birth, with neonatal profound hypotonia, poor spontaneous movements, and respiratory failure; 33 most affected children do not acquire independent walking. It has been reported that only 15% of individuals acquired independent ambulation, 34 and only a few patients gained the ability to walk with assistance but subsequently lost the ability. 35 In our study, we identified one patient with Merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy who presented with profound hypotonia since birth and was diagnosed at two months old with CPK levels and molecular test. Currently, this patient can adequately sit but has problems with gait. These features correspond with phenotypes previously reported in the literature but without respiratory compromise. We also found a patient with autosomal dominant congenital myopathy 7A with a phenotype that presented in early childhood at 14 months old, with significant proximal and distal muscle weakness. In addition, the patient presented with a severe restrictive pulmonary pattern, and a myopathic pattern in electromyography without cardiac alterations. Currently, at his adult age, this patient has proximal and distal quadriparesis and hypoesthesia of the left hemibody. These features correspond with the previously reported in the literature. On the other hand, 12 patients with muscular dystrophy remained unclassified despite their clinical suspicion and after undergoing molecular tests. As previously exposed, patients with similar exonic deletions are going to have different genomic breakpoints. The number of genetic alterations that can be involved in muscular dystrophies is huge. Therefore, performing a single molecular test sometimes is not enough to identify the specific mutation related to the phenotypic presentation of the patient. We made Table 3 as a tool that shows a brief review of the clinical and paraclinical approach to the different types of muscular dystrophy. Table 4 shows the detailed classification of each type of muscular dystrophy. Barohn et al. propose a series of steps regarding the patient’s symptoms by establishing which muscle-related symptoms patients demonstrate; determining the temporal evolution of the symptoms; interrogating if there is a family history of a myopathic disorder; finding out if there are precipitating factors that trigger episodic weakness or stiffness; asking if there are associated systemic symptoms or signs; and lastly, identifying the distribution of Weakness. 36 After completing the 6 steps, clinicians could now attempt to classify a myopathic disorder according to the patterns of muscle weakness. The findings on the physical examination, particularly the distribution of muscle weakness, should provide additional information in determining the correct diagnosis. 36 Subsequently, CPK levels are extremely helpful for the evaluation of patients with a suspected myopathy. The CPK levels are usually elevated in most patients with muscle disease but may be normal in slowly progressive myopathies. 36 Depending on the degree of CPK levels, it can be useful in distinguishing different forms of muscular dystrophy. As in the case of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, CPK levels can be elevated from 10 to more than 100 times the upper limit of normal, whereas in Facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy, the CPK levels are expected to be elevated from 1 to 10 times the upper limit of normal. We also must rule out nonmyopathic factors that can alter CPK levels such as profound muscle wasting, corticosteroid administration, collagen diseases, alcoholism, or hyperthyroidism. 36 Later, we should look for electromyography and nerve conduction studies. These studies can help to distinguish primary neuropathic from myopathic disorders by confirming that the muscle is the correct site of the lesion and that weakness is not the result of an underlying motor neuron disease, neuropathy, or neuromuscular junction disorder. 36 However, their sensitivity and specificity are low. Normal results provide evidence of a nonsevere neuromuscular disorder. 5 A few years ago, if the electrodiagnostic features suggested a myopathic pattern, a muscle biopsy was recommended. Additionally, we can now diagnose muscular dystrophies through molecular tests without performing muscle biopsies in all suspected patients. Table 5 shows the patterns of muscular dystrophy applied to the 29 participants of the study. Patients in our country do not generally have access to molecular tests, so we perform a clinical characterization based on CPK levels, electromyography, and physical examination. We hope in further studies to have the possibility of performing molecular confirmation. Conclusions Although muscular dystrophies consist of a heterogeneous group of neuromuscular diseases, there are still clinical and paraclinical features that can help physicians to detect any case and perform a good approach and follow-up. In our region, many patients with muscular dystrophy remain underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed, which in consequence it compromises their prognosis without adequate treatment. Therefore, our diagnostic sequence will facilitate physicians to identify any of the most frequent muscular dystrophies. Moreover, many patients with muscular dystrophies can remain without optimal treatment due to confusion with other inflammatory myopathies such as polymyositis, dermatomyositis, and inclusion body myositis. 21 In this study, 13.1% of patients diagnosed these other myopathies ended with confirmed muscular dystrophy after performing a detailed revision of their clinical histories and re-consultation of such patients. For this reason, we suggest implementing at least a 6-month follow-up to rule out newly o persistently elevated CPK levels that might indicate a muscular dystrophy. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 04 Mar 2024 Comfamiliar Risaralda , Risaralda, Institucion Universitaria de Comfamiliar Risaralda, Pereira, 660003, Colombia 04 Mar 2024 Author Response Dear editor-in-Chief: Thank you for reviewing our manuscript titled “ Diagnostic strategies for muscular dystrophies: a cross-sectional study ". We thank the reviewers for their overall positive comments and for the ... Continue reading Dear editor-in-Chief: Thank you for reviewing our manuscript titled “ Diagnostic strategies for muscular dystrophies: a cross-sectional study ". We thank the reviewers for their overall positive comments and for the pertinent points they have raised. The recommendations were considered and incorporated into the new version of the manuscript. Please find attached our responses to the comments point-by-point. We have indicated clearly in each case the revisions to the manuscript that address their questions and suggestions. We feel that the manuscript has improved significantly from their critique, and we hope that you will find it acceptable now for publication in F1000Research . Yours sincerely, EIC comments: 1. The title is inappropriate. The study describes the spectrum of muscular dystrophies seen in a hospital-based set-up and the discussion is mostly focused on the utility of serum CPK. There is very little mention of other diagnostic strategies. Reply: We greatly appreciate the EIC comments. Following your suggestions, we reviewed the discussion again so that the types of dystrophies were clear. 2. Only 29 cases have been finally categorized as muscular dystrophies. The number is very small and it is a very heterogeneous group which includes dystrophinopathies, LGMD, myotonic dystrophy, congenital muscular dystrophy and FSHD. Reply: We greatly appreciate the EIC comments. Indeed, we analyzed a base of 750.000 users treated in a reference hospital in central-western Colombia that has an average of 2 million inhabitants. Only 29 cases had these diagnoses according to elevated CPK levels and diagnoses with probable dystrophy. 3. It is not clear how the authors have derived the population prevalence of the various muscular dystrophies based on a study done in a hospital setting/ hospital-based registry. Reply: We greatly appreciate the EIC comments. The prevalences reported in this study are related to a population of patients who were tested for multiple indications including CPK levels. Therefore, the underlying population for the estimation was this group of patients who consulted to our institution. Thus, the annotation regarding population prevalence is valid, and it may be a translation error to report prevalence per 100,000 inhabitants. Due to limitations of the study, we cannot talk of a population prevalence but rather of a hospital prevalence. We also have a related paragraph in the discussion section that explains how we searched for the population: “These prevalences are lower than those reported in the literature and can be explained due to a bias regarding the filter we used to find the patients. We included patients from both genders and all ages who presented with a diagnosis of polymyositis, myoclonus, myopathy, and muscular dystrophy. However, some other suspected cases could have been recorded with different diagnoses, due to misdiagnosis or underdiagnosis, leading to underestimation.” The corrections were made in the following way in the discussion section: “We found a combined prevalence of all muscular dystrophies of 4.2 per 100.000 habitants among patients treated in our hospital base, Duchenne muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000 habitants, limb-girdle muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000 habitants, facioscapulohumeral dystrophy of 0.5 per 100.000 habitants, Bethem dystrophy, type 2 Emery Dreifuss muscular dystrophy, merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy and myosin storage disease of 0.1 per 100.000 .” 4. As per Table 5, a significant number of patients (12 out of 29) do not have conclusive molecular test reports to confirm the diagnosis and to accurately establish the type of muscular dystrophy. The molecular reports, wherever available, which are mentioned, are mostly not as per standard variant notation guidelines. Reply: We greatly appreciate the EIC comments. Indeed, patients in our country do not generally have access to molecular tests, so we perform a clinical characterization based on CPK levels, electromyography, and physical examination. We hope in further studies to have the possibility of performing molecular confirmation. 5. Elevation of serum CPK in muscular dystrophies and the different ranges of serum CPK expected in different types of muscular dystrophies are very well studied and well established and this study does not add anything novel to the existing knowledge about muscular dystrophies. Reply: We greatly appreciate the EIC comments. You are right, we do not have anything novel to the existing knowledge about muscular dystrophies, but it is considered for general physicians to have a broad perspective and the different causes of an elevated CPK when they treat them in the emergency room, as it will allow patients with dystrophy to be diagnosed earlier. In addition, CPK was used in this study mostly to search for patients with probable dystrophy or confirmed muscular dystrophy. 6. Inflammatory myopathies, viral myositis and other acquired causes of muscle involvement are discussed in length - this does not appear to be very relevant to the topic. Reply: We greatly appreciate the EIC comments. You are right, two paragraphs concerning inflammatory myopathies from the discussion section were summarized in the following way: “Frequently, many patients with muscular dystrophies can remain without optimal treatment due to confusion with other inflammatory myopathies such as polymyositis, dermatomyositis, and inclusion body myositis. 21 In this study, 13.1% of patients diagnosed these other myopathies ended with confirmed muscular dystrophy after performing a detailed revision of their clinical histories and re-consultation of such patients. At least a 6-month follow-up should be implemented to rule out newly o persistently elevated CPK levels that might suggest a muscular dystrophy. ” Additional changes: 1. According to your comments, we decided to implement a few other changes to the manuscript. In the Methods section, we would like to add the following paragraphs: Study design A cross-sectional study was made using a retrospective search of patients attended in Comfamiliar Risaralda between 2010 and 2021. The study included patients from both genders and all ages who presented with CPK levels greater than 500U/L, and diagnosis of polymyositis, myoclonus, myopathy, and muscular dystrophy. Patient selection process See linked image. A database analysis was carried out from 2010 to 2022 of 5219 patients treated in a fourth-level care institution in the Eje Cafetero region. As shown in Figure 1, 1949 patients were excluded with other causes of elevated CPK levels such as hypothyroidism, acute myocardial infarction, cardiac insufficiency, rhabdomyolysis, seizures, drugs including statins, fibrates, and nonclear causes. After reviewing medical records, 98 patients did not meet the inclusion criteria for the investigation due to other causes of CPK elevation such as drowning (submersion injuries), perinatal asphyxia, cranioencephalic trauma caused by a car accident, trauma caused by white weapons, and electrostatic discharge ( Figure 1 ). The remaining 52 patients underwent medical consultation and 23 were excluded because some did not meet the clinical criteria for any muscular dystrophy but for other causes of transient elevation of CPK levels, and others manifested discontinuation in the study ( Table 1 ). Finally, the patients underwent a second medical consultation by a geneticist to corroborate and classify the remaining 29 patients. *Insert Table 1 Data collection and Statistical analysis In an initial instance of the study, a retrospective institutional active search was made through text mining in laboratory databases for all CPK measures carried out by the Comfamiliar Risaralda laboratory between 2010 and 2021. After that, the results were purified and organized under the criteria of registered CPK elevation, and again the search language in databases was made to extract new confirmed or repeated diagnoses that could explain the CPKemia. Data collection was implemented through a study-specific case report form (CRF). A detailed data validation plan that identified missing data, out-of-range data and other data inconsistencies in the form of revision checking was implemented on the platform before the start of the study. The collected information was entered into the RedCAP platform, where the CRF was previously located with validation and automated fields if applicable. Discrepancies in the data were reported to the team as queries. Access to the database was restricted through password protection to authorized data management personnel. Descriptive statistics were obtained for numerical variables, including measures of central tendency such as mean and median. Descriptive statistics for categorical variables included a tabulation of frequencies with counts and percentages. The estimation of prevalences was carried out employing Bayesian inference since they allow a greater gain in precision in the estimation of parameters with values below 10%, as well as it was carried out utilizing a beta-binomial model under the binom package of R software. Statistical analyzes were also performed in R software. 2. According to your comments, we decided to implement a few other changes. In the Results section, we would like to add the following paragraphs: Results We found 29 patients with clinical muscular dystrophy in our hospital-based registry, with a mean CPK value of 3231.241, a standard deviation of 5019.543, and a maximum of 22670. We found a combined prevalence of all muscular dystrophies of 4.2 per 100.000 patients attended in our hospital base, Duchenne muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000, limb-girdle muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000, facioscapulohumeral dystrophy of 0.5 per 100.000, Bethem dystrophy, type 2 Emery Dreifuss muscular dystrophy, merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy and myosin storage disease of 0.1 per 100.000. 3. According to your comments, we decided to implement a few other changes. In the Discussion section, we would like to add the following paragraphs: Discussion Several studies have described the different types of muscular dystrophy. However, there is poor evidence analyzing multiple muscular dystrophies within the same population. This leads to heterogeneity in studies regarding prevalences, clinical manifestations, and a good genotype-phenotype correlation. In our study, we found patients with Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophy, facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy, limb-girdle muscular dystrophy, Emery Dreifus muscular dystrophy, merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy, and autosomal dominant congenital myopathy 7A ( Table 2 ). Therefore, to identify a patient with a particular type of disease, clinicians should follow a diagnostic sequence not only for differentiating muscular dystrophy from other inflammatory myopathies but also to discriminate the specific type. *Insert Table 2 In our study, we analyzed the clinical and molecular characteristics of 29 patients with muscular dystrophy in Colombia. According to Mercuri and Muntoni, the prevalence of Duchenne muscular dystrophy is 8-29 per 100 000 boys; Becker muscular dystrophy has a prevalence of 7-29 per 100 000 boys; limb-girdle muscular dystrophy has a prevalence of 0.8-5.7 per 100 000 inhabitants; myotonic dystrophy has an estimated prevalence of 10-6 per 100 000 men, followed by facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy with a prevalence of three per 100 000 men, and myosin storage disease with noncurrent reported prevalence. 14 We found a combined prevalence of all muscular dystrophies of 4.2 per 100.000 among patients treated in our hospital base, Duchenne muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000, limb-girdle muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000, facioscapulohumeral dystrophy of 0.5 per 100.000, Bethem dystrophy, type 2 Emery Dreifuss muscular dystrophy, merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy and myosin storage disease of 0.1 per 100.000. These prevalences are lower than those reported in the literature and can be explained due to a bias regarding the filter we used to find the patients. We included patients from both genders and all ages who presented with a diagnosis of polymyositis, myoclonus, myopathy, and muscular dystrophy. However, some other suspected cases could have been recorded with different diagnoses, due to misdiagnosis or underdiagnosis, leading to underestimation. Non-diagnosed patients with muscular dystrophy and associated complications can also dissuade physicians from diagnosing adequately. Depending on the type of muscular dystrophy, some complications such as restrictive lung disease, cardiomyopathy, scoliosis, corticosteroid side effects, and psychosocial issues can generally lead professionals to focus only on the direct acute cause of the signs and symptoms and not to search for a long-term systemic etiology like muscular dystrophy. 22 Therefore, clinicians need to figure out that patients presenting with some acute diseases, especially in recurrent cases, might also be associated with muscular dystrophy to keep in mind. Duchenne muscular dystrophy age onset of symptoms is in early childhood around the age of 5 years, it is rapidly progressive and most patients lose ambulation around 10-15 years old, leading them wheelchair dependent. 23 Becker muscular dystrophy symptoms can start around 10-20 years old but in some cases, permanent asymptomatic until adulthood even >30 years, and remain ambulant even until their 60s. 23 , 24 In our study, we found that most patients had similar features as previously reported in the literature. Three patients were revealed with the c.6439-?_6912+?del p.(Glu2146_Val2304del) mutation who presented with a mild phenotype of Becker muscular dystrophy. At the moment of consultation, they had a mean age of 48 years (SD 40-54). All of them presented with hyporeflexia, mild muscle weakness, age onset of symptoms between 10 and 20 years old, and any of the three patients were wheelchair dependant. Greer et al. reported this same mutation in a patient with Becker muscular dystrophy who lost ambulation by the age of 15 years. 25 They suggest that patients with apparently identical exonic deletions are almost certainly going to have different genomic breakpoints and therefore will be missing different intronic regions, and potentially, splicing motifs resulting in different phenotypes. 25 Vengalil et al. also identified that patients with deletions of exons 45-47 are clinically related to the development of cardiomyopathy and earlier wheelchair dependence. 26 Further studies analyzing genotype-phenotype correlation in patients with muscular dystrophy would be helpful to better understand the pathogenesis, and predict phenotypes. Facioscapulohumeral dystrophy has an onset around 10-20 years old. Still, there are some unusual cases where the symptoms are present at the moment of birth, and some others remain asymptomatic their whole life. By the age of 20 years, 50% of the cases have developed symptoms, and eventually, 20% of the affected require a wheelchair, which is consistent with our study where patients with facioscapulohumeral dystrophy developed symptoms after 20 years old. 27 In Bethlem muscular dystrophy, the symptoms can range from congenital to mid-adulthood, been the congenital cases extremely rare. 28 The progression is slow and more than 2/3 of the affected older than 50 years require supportive means (cane, crutches, wheelchair) for outdoor mobility. 29 This is consistent with our study where we found one patient with Bethlem muscular dystrophy who presented as a congenital case that also had supportive means for outdoor mobility. Limb-girdle muscular dystrophy is an extremely heterogeneous group. Over 30 distinct subtypes have been identified, in which the onset of symptoms is at any age with some severe congenital cases and some mild cases starting in adulthood; the severity is also variable. 30 As stated in the literature, we found four patients with variable phenotypes ranging from mild disease with onset of symptoms over 20 years old to more severe cases with early onset of symptoms in childhood. Emery Dreifuss muscular dystrophy onset of symptoms begins in the first two or three decades of life. 31 The progression is slow, and loss of ambulation can occur in the autosomal dominant variant but is rare in the X-linked variant. 32 We found one patient with Emery Dreifuss muscular dystrophy whose symptoms corresponded with those reported in the literature. Merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy is a severe type with symptoms present at the moment of birth, with neonatal profound hypotonia, poor spontaneous movements, and respiratory failure; 33 most affected children do not acquire independent walking. It has been reported that only 15% of individuals acquired independent ambulation, 34 and only a few patients gained the ability to walk with assistance but subsequently lost the ability. 35 In our study, we identified one patient with Merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy who presented with profound hypotonia since birth and was diagnosed at two months old with CPK levels and molecular test. Currently, this patient can adequately sit but has problems with gait. These features correspond with phenotypes previously reported in the literature but without respiratory compromise. We also found a patient with autosomal dominant congenital myopathy 7A with a phenotype that presented in early childhood at 14 months old, with significant proximal and distal muscle weakness. In addition, the patient presented with a severe restrictive pulmonary pattern, and a myopathic pattern in electromyography without cardiac alterations. Currently, at his adult age, this patient has proximal and distal quadriparesis and hypoesthesia of the left hemibody. These features correspond with the previously reported in the literature. On the other hand, 12 patients with muscular dystrophy remained unclassified despite their clinical suspicion and after undergoing molecular tests. As previously exposed, patients with similar exonic deletions are going to have different genomic breakpoints. The number of genetic alterations that can be involved in muscular dystrophies is huge. Therefore, performing a single molecular test sometimes is not enough to identify the specific mutation related to the phenotypic presentation of the patient. We made Table 3 as a tool that shows a brief review of the clinical and paraclinical approach to the different types of muscular dystrophy. Table 4 shows the detailed classification of each type of muscular dystrophy. Barohn et al. propose a series of steps regarding the patient’s symptoms by establishing which muscle-related symptoms patients demonstrate; determining the temporal evolution of the symptoms; interrogating if there is a family history of a myopathic disorder; finding out if there are precipitating factors that trigger episodic weakness or stiffness; asking if there are associated systemic symptoms or signs; and lastly, identifying the distribution of Weakness. 36 After completing the 6 steps, clinicians could now attempt to classify a myopathic disorder according to the patterns of muscle weakness. The findings on the physical examination, particularly the distribution of muscle weakness, should provide additional information in determining the correct diagnosis. 36 Subsequently, CPK levels are extremely helpful for the evaluation of patients with a suspected myopathy. The CPK levels are usually elevated in most patients with muscle disease but may be normal in slowly progressive myopathies. 36 Depending on the degree of CPK levels, it can be useful in distinguishing different forms of muscular dystrophy. As in the case of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, CPK levels can be elevated from 10 to more than 100 times the upper limit of normal, whereas in Facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy, the CPK levels are expected to be elevated from 1 to 10 times the upper limit of normal. We also must rule out nonmyopathic factors that can alter CPK levels such as profound muscle wasting, corticosteroid administration, collagen diseases, alcoholism, or hyperthyroidism. 36 Later, we should look for electromyography and nerve conduction studies. These studies can help to distinguish primary neuropathic from myopathic disorders by confirming that the muscle is the correct site of the lesion and that weakness is not the result of an underlying motor neuron disease, neuropathy, or neuromuscular junction disorder. 36 However, their sensitivity and specificity are low. Normal results provide evidence of a nonsevere neuromuscular disorder. 5 A few years ago, if the electrodiagnostic features suggested a myopathic pattern, a muscle biopsy was recommended. Additionally, we can now diagnose muscular dystrophies through molecular tests without performing muscle biopsies in all suspected patients. Table 5 shows the patterns of muscular dystrophy applied to the 29 participants of the study. Patients in our country do not generally have access to molecular tests, so we perform a clinical characterization based on CPK levels, electromyography, and physical examination. We hope in further studies to have the possibility of performing molecular confirmation. Conclusions Although muscular dystrophies consist of a heterogeneous group of neuromuscular diseases, there are still clinical and paraclinical features that can help physicians to detect any case and perform a good approach and follow-up. In our region, many patients with muscular dystrophy remain underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed, which in consequence it compromises their prognosis without adequate treatment. Therefore, our diagnostic sequence will facilitate physicians to identify any of the most frequent muscular dystrophies. Moreover, many patients with muscular dystrophies can remain without optimal treatment due to confusion with other inflammatory myopathies such as polymyositis, dermatomyositis, and inclusion body myositis. 21 In this study, 13.1% of patients diagnosed these other myopathies ended with confirmed muscular dystrophy after performing a detailed revision of their clinical histories and re-consultation of such patients. For this reason, we suggest implementing at least a 6-month follow-up to rule out newly o persistently elevated CPK levels that might indicate a muscular dystrophy. Dear editor-in-Chief: Thank you for reviewing our manuscript titled “ Diagnostic strategies for muscular dystrophies: a cross-sectional study ". We thank the reviewers for their overall positive comments and for the pertinent points they have raised. The recommendations were considered and incorporated into the new version of the manuscript. Please find attached our responses to the comments point-by-point. We have indicated clearly in each case the revisions to the manuscript that address their questions and suggestions. We feel that the manuscript has improved significantly from their critique, and we hope that you will find it acceptable now for publication in F1000Research . Yours sincerely, EIC comments: 1. The title is inappropriate. The study describes the spectrum of muscular dystrophies seen in a hospital-based set-up and the discussion is mostly focused on the utility of serum CPK. There is very little mention of other diagnostic strategies. Reply: We greatly appreciate the EIC comments. Following your suggestions, we reviewed the discussion again so that the types of dystrophies were clear. 2. Only 29 cases have been finally categorized as muscular dystrophies. The number is very small and it is a very heterogeneous group which includes dystrophinopathies, LGMD, myotonic dystrophy, congenital muscular dystrophy and FSHD. Reply: We greatly appreciate the EIC comments. Indeed, we analyzed a base of 750.000 users treated in a reference hospital in central-western Colombia that has an average of 2 million inhabitants. Only 29 cases had these diagnoses according to elevated CPK levels and diagnoses with probable dystrophy. 3. It is not clear how the authors have derived the population prevalence of the various muscular dystrophies based on a study done in a hospital setting/ hospital-based registry. Reply: We greatly appreciate the EIC comments. The prevalences reported in this study are related to a population of patients who were tested for multiple indications including CPK levels. Therefore, the underlying population for the estimation was this group of patients who consulted to our institution. Thus, the annotation regarding population prevalence is valid, and it may be a translation error to report prevalence per 100,000 inhabitants. Due to limitations of the study, we cannot talk of a population prevalence but rather of a hospital prevalence. We also have a related paragraph in the discussion section that explains how we searched for the population: “These prevalences are lower than those reported in the literature and can be explained due to a bias regarding the filter we used to find the patients. We included patients from both genders and all ages who presented with a diagnosis of polymyositis, myoclonus, myopathy, and muscular dystrophy. However, some other suspected cases could have been recorded with different diagnoses, due to misdiagnosis or underdiagnosis, leading to underestimation.” The corrections were made in the following way in the discussion section: “We found a combined prevalence of all muscular dystrophies of 4.2 per 100.000 habitants among patients treated in our hospital base, Duchenne muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000 habitants, limb-girdle muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000 habitants, facioscapulohumeral dystrophy of 0.5 per 100.000 habitants, Bethem dystrophy, type 2 Emery Dreifuss muscular dystrophy, merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy and myosin storage disease of 0.1 per 100.000 .” 4. As per Table 5, a significant number of patients (12 out of 29) do not have conclusive molecular test reports to confirm the diagnosis and to accurately establish the type of muscular dystrophy. The molecular reports, wherever available, which are mentioned, are mostly not as per standard variant notation guidelines. Reply: We greatly appreciate the EIC comments. Indeed, patients in our country do not generally have access to molecular tests, so we perform a clinical characterization based on CPK levels, electromyography, and physical examination. We hope in further studies to have the possibility of performing molecular confirmation. 5. Elevation of serum CPK in muscular dystrophies and the different ranges of serum CPK expected in different types of muscular dystrophies are very well studied and well established and this study does not add anything novel to the existing knowledge about muscular dystrophies. Reply: We greatly appreciate the EIC comments. You are right, we do not have anything novel to the existing knowledge about muscular dystrophies, but it is considered for general physicians to have a broad perspective and the different causes of an elevated CPK when they treat them in the emergency room, as it will allow patients with dystrophy to be diagnosed earlier. In addition, CPK was used in this study mostly to search for patients with probable dystrophy or confirmed muscular dystrophy. 6. Inflammatory myopathies, viral myositis and other acquired causes of muscle involvement are discussed in length - this does not appear to be very relevant to the topic. Reply: We greatly appreciate the EIC comments. You are right, two paragraphs concerning inflammatory myopathies from the discussion section were summarized in the following way: “Frequently, many patients with muscular dystrophies can remain without optimal treatment due to confusion with other inflammatory myopathies such as polymyositis, dermatomyositis, and inclusion body myositis. 21 In this study, 13.1% of patients diagnosed these other myopathies ended with confirmed muscular dystrophy after performing a detailed revision of their clinical histories and re-consultation of such patients. At least a 6-month follow-up should be implemented to rule out newly o persistently elevated CPK levels that might suggest a muscular dystrophy. ” Additional changes: 1. According to your comments, we decided to implement a few other changes to the manuscript. In the Methods section, we would like to add the following paragraphs: Study design A cross-sectional study was made using a retrospective search of patients attended in Comfamiliar Risaralda between 2010 and 2021. The study included patients from both genders and all ages who presented with CPK levels greater than 500U/L, and diagnosis of polymyositis, myoclonus, myopathy, and muscular dystrophy. Patient selection process See linked image. A database analysis was carried out from 2010 to 2022 of 5219 patients treated in a fourth-level care institution in the Eje Cafetero region. As shown in Figure 1, 1949 patients were excluded with other causes of elevated CPK levels such as hypothyroidism, acute myocardial infarction, cardiac insufficiency, rhabdomyolysis, seizures, drugs including statins, fibrates, and nonclear causes. After reviewing medical records, 98 patients did not meet the inclusion criteria for the investigation due to other causes of CPK elevation such as drowning (submersion injuries), perinatal asphyxia, cranioencephalic trauma caused by a car accident, trauma caused by white weapons, and electrostatic discharge ( Figure 1 ). The remaining 52 patients underwent medical consultation and 23 were excluded because some did not meet the clinical criteria for any muscular dystrophy but for other causes of transient elevation of CPK levels, and others manifested discontinuation in the study ( Table 1 ). Finally, the patients underwent a second medical consultation by a geneticist to corroborate and classify the remaining 29 patients. *Insert Table 1 Data collection and Statistical analysis In an initial instance of the study, a retrospective institutional active search was made through text mining in laboratory databases for all CPK measures carried out by the Comfamiliar Risaralda laboratory between 2010 and 2021. After that, the results were purified and organized under the criteria of registered CPK elevation, and again the search language in databases was made to extract new confirmed or repeated diagnoses that could explain the CPKemia. Data collection was implemented through a study-specific case report form (CRF). A detailed data validation plan that identified missing data, out-of-range data and other data inconsistencies in the form of revision checking was implemented on the platform before the start of the study. The collected information was entered into the RedCAP platform, where the CRF was previously located with validation and automated fields if applicable. Discrepancies in the data were reported to the team as queries. Access to the database was restricted through password protection to authorized data management personnel. Descriptive statistics were obtained for numerical variables, including measures of central tendency such as mean and median. Descriptive statistics for categorical variables included a tabulation of frequencies with counts and percentages. The estimation of prevalences was carried out employing Bayesian inference since they allow a greater gain in precision in the estimation of parameters with values below 10%, as well as it was carried out utilizing a beta-binomial model under the binom package of R software. Statistical analyzes were also performed in R software. 2. According to your comments, we decided to implement a few other changes. In the Results section, we would like to add the following paragraphs: Results We found 29 patients with clinical muscular dystrophy in our hospital-based registry, with a mean CPK value of 3231.241, a standard deviation of 5019.543, and a maximum of 22670. We found a combined prevalence of all muscular dystrophies of 4.2 per 100.000 patients attended in our hospital base, Duchenne muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000, limb-girdle muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000, facioscapulohumeral dystrophy of 0.5 per 100.000, Bethem dystrophy, type 2 Emery Dreifuss muscular dystrophy, merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy and myosin storage disease of 0.1 per 100.000. 3. According to your comments, we decided to implement a few other changes. In the Discussion section, we would like to add the following paragraphs: Discussion Several studies have described the different types of muscular dystrophy. However, there is poor evidence analyzing multiple muscular dystrophies within the same population. This leads to heterogeneity in studies regarding prevalences, clinical manifestations, and a good genotype-phenotype correlation. In our study, we found patients with Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophy, facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy, limb-girdle muscular dystrophy, Emery Dreifus muscular dystrophy, merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy, and autosomal dominant congenital myopathy 7A ( Table 2 ). Therefore, to identify a patient with a particular type of disease, clinicians should follow a diagnostic sequence not only for differentiating muscular dystrophy from other inflammatory myopathies but also to discriminate the specific type. *Insert Table 2 In our study, we analyzed the clinical and molecular characteristics of 29 patients with muscular dystrophy in Colombia. According to Mercuri and Muntoni, the prevalence of Duchenne muscular dystrophy is 8-29 per 100 000 boys; Becker muscular dystrophy has a prevalence of 7-29 per 100 000 boys; limb-girdle muscular dystrophy has a prevalence of 0.8-5.7 per 100 000 inhabitants; myotonic dystrophy has an estimated prevalence of 10-6 per 100 000 men, followed by facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy with a prevalence of three per 100 000 men, and myosin storage disease with noncurrent reported prevalence. 14 We found a combined prevalence of all muscular dystrophies of 4.2 per 100.000 among patients treated in our hospital base, Duchenne muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000, limb-girdle muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000, facioscapulohumeral dystrophy of 0.5 per 100.000, Bethem dystrophy, type 2 Emery Dreifuss muscular dystrophy, merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy and myosin storage disease of 0.1 per 100.000. These prevalences are lower than those reported in the literature and can be explained due to a bias regarding the filter we used to find the patients. We included patients from both genders and all ages who presented with a diagnosis of polymyositis, myoclonus, myopathy, and muscular dystrophy. However, some other suspected cases could have been recorded with different diagnoses, due to misdiagnosis or underdiagnosis, leading to underestimation. Non-diagnosed patients with muscular dystrophy and associated complications can also dissuade physicians from diagnosing adequately. Depending on the type of muscular dystrophy, some complications such as restrictive lung disease, cardiomyopathy, scoliosis, corticosteroid side effects, and psychosocial issues can generally lead professionals to focus only on the direct acute cause of the signs and symptoms and not to search for a long-term systemic etiology like muscular dystrophy. 22 Therefore, clinicians need to figure out that patients presenting with some acute diseases, especially in recurrent cases, might also be associated with muscular dystrophy to keep in mind. Duchenne muscular dystrophy age onset of symptoms is in early childhood around the age of 5 years, it is rapidly progressive and most patients lose ambulation around 10-15 years old, leading them wheelchair dependent. 23 Becker muscular dystrophy symptoms can start around 10-20 years old but in some cases, permanent asymptomatic until adulthood even >30 years, and remain ambulant even until their 60s. 23 , 24 In our study, we found that most patients had similar features as previously reported in the literature. Three patients were revealed with the c.6439-?_6912+?del p.(Glu2146_Val2304del) mutation who presented with a mild phenotype of Becker muscular dystrophy. At the moment of consultation, they had a mean age of 48 years (SD 40-54). All of them presented with hyporeflexia, mild muscle weakness, age onset of symptoms between 10 and 20 years old, and any of the three patients were wheelchair dependant. Greer et al. reported this same mutation in a patient with Becker muscular dystrophy who lost ambulation by the age of 15 years. 25 They suggest that patients with apparently identical exonic deletions are almost certainly going to have different genomic breakpoints and therefore will be missing different intronic regions, and potentially, splicing motifs resulting in different phenotypes. 25 Vengalil et al. also identified that patients with deletions of exons 45-47 are clinically related to the development of cardiomyopathy and earlier wheelchair dependence. 26 Further studies analyzing genotype-phenotype correlation in patients with muscular dystrophy would be helpful to better understand the pathogenesis, and predict phenotypes. Facioscapulohumeral dystrophy has an onset around 10-20 years old. Still, there are some unusual cases where the symptoms are present at the moment of birth, and some others remain asymptomatic their whole life. By the age of 20 years, 50% of the cases have developed symptoms, and eventually, 20% of the affected require a wheelchair, which is consistent with our study where patients with facioscapulohumeral dystrophy developed symptoms after 20 years old. 27 In Bethlem muscular dystrophy, the symptoms can range from congenital to mid-adulthood, been the congenital cases extremely rare. 28 The progression is slow and more than 2/3 of the affected older than 50 years require supportive means (cane, crutches, wheelchair) for outdoor mobility. 29 This is consistent with our study where we found one patient with Bethlem muscular dystrophy who presented as a congenital case that also had supportive means for outdoor mobility. Limb-girdle muscular dystrophy is an extremely heterogeneous group. Over 30 distinct subtypes have been identified, in which the onset of symptoms is at any age with some severe congenital cases and some mild cases starting in adulthood; the severity is also variable. 30 As stated in the literature, we found four patients with variable phenotypes ranging from mild disease with onset of symptoms over 20 years old to more severe cases with early onset of symptoms in childhood. Emery Dreifuss muscular dystrophy onset of symptoms begins in the first two or three decades of life. 31 The progression is slow, and loss of ambulation can occur in the autosomal dominant variant but is rare in the X-linked variant. 32 We found one patient with Emery Dreifuss muscular dystrophy whose symptoms corresponded with those reported in the literature. Merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy is a severe type with symptoms present at the moment of birth, with neonatal profound hypotonia, poor spontaneous movements, and respiratory failure; 33 most affected children do not acquire independent walking. It has been reported that only 15% of individuals acquired independent ambulation, 34 and only a few patients gained the ability to walk with assistance but subsequently lost the ability. 35 In our study, we identified one patient with Merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy who presented with profound hypotonia since birth and was diagnosed at two months old with CPK levels and molecular test. Currently, this patient can adequately sit but has problems with gait. These features correspond with phenotypes previously reported in the literature but without respiratory compromise. We also found a patient with autosomal dominant congenital myopathy 7A with a phenotype that presented in early childhood at 14 months old, with significant proximal and distal muscle weakness. In addition, the patient presented with a severe restrictive pulmonary pattern, and a myopathic pattern in electromyography without cardiac alterations. Currently, at his adult age, this patient has proximal and distal quadriparesis and hypoesthesia of the left hemibody. These features correspond with the previously reported in the literature. On the other hand, 12 patients with muscular dystrophy remained unclassified despite their clinical suspicion and after undergoing molecular tests. As previously exposed, patients with similar exonic deletions are going to have different genomic breakpoints. The number of genetic alterations that can be involved in muscular dystrophies is huge. Therefore, performing a single molecular test sometimes is not enough to identify the specific mutation related to the phenotypic presentation of the patient. We made Table 3 as a tool that shows a brief review of the clinical and paraclinical approach to the different types of muscular dystrophy. Table 4 shows the detailed classification of each type of muscular dystrophy. Barohn et al. propose a series of steps regarding the patient’s symptoms by establishing which muscle-related symptoms patients demonstrate; determining the temporal evolution of the symptoms; interrogating if there is a family history of a myopathic disorder; finding out if there are precipitating factors that trigger episodic weakness or stiffness; asking if there are associated systemic symptoms or signs; and lastly, identifying the distribution of Weakness. 36 After completing the 6 steps, clinicians could now attempt to classify a myopathic disorder according to the patterns of muscle weakness. The findings on the physical examination, particularly the distribution of muscle weakness, should provide additional information in determining the correct diagnosis. 36 Subsequently, CPK levels are extremely helpful for the evaluation of patients with a suspected myopathy. The CPK levels are usually elevated in most patients with muscle disease but may be normal in slowly progressive myopathies. 36 Depending on the degree of CPK levels, it can be useful in distinguishing different forms of muscular dystrophy. As in the case of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, CPK levels can be elevated from 10 to more than 100 times the upper limit of normal, whereas in Facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy, the CPK levels are expected to be elevated from 1 to 10 times the upper limit of normal. We also must rule out nonmyopathic factors that can alter CPK levels such as profound muscle wasting, corticosteroid administration, collagen diseases, alcoholism, or hyperthyroidism. 36 Later, we should look for electromyography and nerve conduction studies. These studies can help to distinguish primary neuropathic from myopathic disorders by confirming that the muscle is the correct site of the lesion and that weakness is not the result of an underlying motor neuron disease, neuropathy, or neuromuscular junction disorder. 36 However, their sensitivity and specificity are low. Normal results provide evidence of a nonsevere neuromuscular disorder. 5 A few years ago, if the electrodiagnostic features suggested a myopathic pattern, a muscle biopsy was recommended. Additionally, we can now diagnose muscular dystrophies through molecular tests without performing muscle biopsies in all suspected patients. Table 5 shows the patterns of muscular dystrophy applied to the 29 participants of the study. Patients in our country do not generally have access to molecular tests, so we perform a clinical characterization based on CPK levels, electromyography, and physical examination. We hope in further studies to have the possibility of performing molecular confirmation. Conclusions Although muscular dystrophies consist of a heterogeneous group of neuromuscular diseases, there are still clinical and paraclinical features that can help physicians to detect any case and perform a good approach and follow-up. In our region, many patients with muscular dystrophy remain underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed, which in consequence it compromises their prognosis without adequate treatment. Therefore, our diagnostic sequence will facilitate physicians to identify any of the most frequent muscular dystrophies. Moreover, many patients with muscular dystrophies can remain without optimal treatment due to confusion with other inflammatory myopathies such as polymyositis, dermatomyositis, and inclusion body myositis. 21 In this study, 13.1% of patients diagnosed these other myopathies ended with confirmed muscular dystrophy after performing a detailed revision of their clinical histories and re-consultation of such patients. For this reason, we suggest implementing at least a 6-month follow-up to rule out newly o persistently elevated CPK levels that might indicate a muscular dystrophy. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 03 Aug 2023 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 Version 2 (revision) 04 Mar 24 read Version 1 03 Aug 23 read Prajnya Ranganath , Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, India Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Ranganath P. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 03 Apr 2024 | for Version 2 Prajnya Ranganath , Department of Medical Genetics, Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, Telangana, India 0 Views copyright © 2024 Ranganath P. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Thank you for sharing the revised manuscript. I have gone through the revisions and noted the response of the authors to the previous set of comments. Though the authors have made some modifications, the comments mentioned in the initial review (for the originally submitted manuscript) are applicable to the revised version also. In my opinion, the article requires further revisions. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Clinical Genetics; Genetic Neuromuscular Disorders I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 31 May 2024 Comfamiliar Risaralda, Risaralda, Institucion Universitaria de Comfamiliar Risaralda, Pereira, 660003, Colombia Thank you for sharing your comments. We would like to know if you could tell us what exactly are those further revisions or corrections that you suggest us to approach. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Ranganath P. Peer Review Report For: Diagnostic strategies for muscular dystrophies: a cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :930 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.159475.r252398) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-930/v2#referee-response-252398 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2023 Ranganath P. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 22 Sep 2023 | for Version 1 Prajnya Ranganath , Department of Medical Genetics, Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, Telangana, India 0 Views copyright © 2023 Ranganath P. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The title is inappropriate. The study describes the spectrum of muscular dystrophies seen in a hospital-based set-up and the discussion is mostly focused on the utility of serum CPK. There is very little mention of other diagnostic strategies. Only 29 cases have been finally categorized as muscular dystrophies. The number is very small and it is a very heterogeneous group which includes dystrophinopathies, LGMD, myotonic dystrophy, congenital muscular dystrophy and FSHD. It is not clear how the authors have derived the population prevalence of the various muscular dystrophies based on a study done in a hospital setting/ hospital-based registry. As per Table 5, a significant number of patients (12 out of 29) do not have conclusive molecular test reports to confirm the diagnosis and to accurately establish the type of muscular dystrophy. The molecular reports, wherever available, which are mentioned, are mostly not as per standard variant notation guidelines. Elevation of serum CPK in muscular dystrophies and the different ranges of serum CPK expected in different types of muscular dystrophies are very well studied and well established and this study does not add anything novel to the existing knowledge about muscular dystrophies. Inflammatory myopathies, viral myositis and other acquired causes of muscle involvement are discussed in length - this does not appear to be very relevant to the topic. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? No Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? No Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Clinical Genetics; Genetic Neuromuscular Disorders I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 04 Mar 2024 Comfamiliar Risaralda, Risaralda, Institucion Universitaria de Comfamiliar Risaralda, Pereira, 660003, Colombia Dear editor-in-Chief: Thank you for reviewing our manuscript titled “ Diagnostic strategies for muscular dystrophies: a cross-sectional study ". We thank the reviewers for their overall positive comments and for the pertinent points they have raised. The recommendations were considered and incorporated into the new version of the manuscript. Please find attached our responses to the comments point-by-point. We have indicated clearly in each case the revisions to the manuscript that address their questions and suggestions. We feel that the manuscript has improved significantly from their critique, and we hope that you will find it acceptable now for publication in F1000Research . Yours sincerely, EIC comments: 1. The title is inappropriate. The study describes the spectrum of muscular dystrophies seen in a hospital-based set-up and the discussion is mostly focused on the utility of serum CPK. There is very little mention of other diagnostic strategies. Reply: We greatly appreciate the EIC comments. Following your suggestions, we reviewed the discussion again so that the types of dystrophies were clear. 2. Only 29 cases have been finally categorized as muscular dystrophies. The number is very small and it is a very heterogeneous group which includes dystrophinopathies, LGMD, myotonic dystrophy, congenital muscular dystrophy and FSHD. Reply: We greatly appreciate the EIC comments. Indeed, we analyzed a base of 750.000 users treated in a reference hospital in central-western Colombia that has an average of 2 million inhabitants. Only 29 cases had these diagnoses according to elevated CPK levels and diagnoses with probable dystrophy. 3. It is not clear how the authors have derived the population prevalence of the various muscular dystrophies based on a study done in a hospital setting/ hospital-based registry. Reply: We greatly appreciate the EIC comments. The prevalences reported in this study are related to a population of patients who were tested for multiple indications including CPK levels. Therefore, the underlying population for the estimation was this group of patients who consulted to our institution. Thus, the annotation regarding population prevalence is valid, and it may be a translation error to report prevalence per 100,000 inhabitants. Due to limitations of the study, we cannot talk of a population prevalence but rather of a hospital prevalence. We also have a related paragraph in the discussion section that explains how we searched for the population: “These prevalences are lower than those reported in the literature and can be explained due to a bias regarding the filter we used to find the patients. We included patients from both genders and all ages who presented with a diagnosis of polymyositis, myoclonus, myopathy, and muscular dystrophy. However, some other suspected cases could have been recorded with different diagnoses, due to misdiagnosis or underdiagnosis, leading to underestimation.” The corrections were made in the following way in the discussion section: “We found a combined prevalence of all muscular dystrophies of 4.2 per 100.000 habitants among patients treated in our hospital base, Duchenne muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000 habitants, limb-girdle muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000 habitants, facioscapulohumeral dystrophy of 0.5 per 100.000 habitants, Bethem dystrophy, type 2 Emery Dreifuss muscular dystrophy, merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy and myosin storage disease of 0.1 per 100.000 .” 4. As per Table 5, a significant number of patients (12 out of 29) do not have conclusive molecular test reports to confirm the diagnosis and to accurately establish the type of muscular dystrophy. The molecular reports, wherever available, which are mentioned, are mostly not as per standard variant notation guidelines. Reply: We greatly appreciate the EIC comments. Indeed, patients in our country do not generally have access to molecular tests, so we perform a clinical characterization based on CPK levels, electromyography, and physical examination. We hope in further studies to have the possibility of performing molecular confirmation. 5. Elevation of serum CPK in muscular dystrophies and the different ranges of serum CPK expected in different types of muscular dystrophies are very well studied and well established and this study does not add anything novel to the existing knowledge about muscular dystrophies. Reply: We greatly appreciate the EIC comments. You are right, we do not have anything novel to the existing knowledge about muscular dystrophies, but it is considered for general physicians to have a broad perspective and the different causes of an elevated CPK when they treat them in the emergency room, as it will allow patients with dystrophy to be diagnosed earlier. In addition, CPK was used in this study mostly to search for patients with probable dystrophy or confirmed muscular dystrophy. 6. Inflammatory myopathies, viral myositis and other acquired causes of muscle involvement are discussed in length - this does not appear to be very relevant to the topic. Reply: We greatly appreciate the EIC comments. You are right, two paragraphs concerning inflammatory myopathies from the discussion section were summarized in the following way: “Frequently, many patients with muscular dystrophies can remain without optimal treatment due to confusion with other inflammatory myopathies such as polymyositis, dermatomyositis, and inclusion body myositis. 21 In this study, 13.1% of patients diagnosed these other myopathies ended with confirmed muscular dystrophy after performing a detailed revision of their clinical histories and re-consultation of such patients. At least a 6-month follow-up should be implemented to rule out newly o persistently elevated CPK levels that might suggest a muscular dystrophy. ” Additional changes: 1. According to your comments, we decided to implement a few other changes to the manuscript. In the Methods section, we would like to add the following paragraphs: Study design A cross-sectional study was made using a retrospective search of patients attended in Comfamiliar Risaralda between 2010 and 2021. The study included patients from both genders and all ages who presented with CPK levels greater than 500U/L, and diagnosis of polymyositis, myoclonus, myopathy, and muscular dystrophy. Patient selection process See linked image. A database analysis was carried out from 2010 to 2022 of 5219 patients treated in a fourth-level care institution in the Eje Cafetero region. As shown in Figure 1, 1949 patients were excluded with other causes of elevated CPK levels such as hypothyroidism, acute myocardial infarction, cardiac insufficiency, rhabdomyolysis, seizures, drugs including statins, fibrates, and nonclear causes. After reviewing medical records, 98 patients did not meet the inclusion criteria for the investigation due to other causes of CPK elevation such as drowning (submersion injuries), perinatal asphyxia, cranioencephalic trauma caused by a car accident, trauma caused by white weapons, and electrostatic discharge ( Figure 1 ). The remaining 52 patients underwent medical consultation and 23 were excluded because some did not meet the clinical criteria for any muscular dystrophy but for other causes of transient elevation of CPK levels, and others manifested discontinuation in the study ( Table 1 ). Finally, the patients underwent a second medical consultation by a geneticist to corroborate and classify the remaining 29 patients. *Insert Table 1 Data collection and Statistical analysis In an initial instance of the study, a retrospective institutional active search was made through text mining in laboratory databases for all CPK measures carried out by the Comfamiliar Risaralda laboratory between 2010 and 2021. After that, the results were purified and organized under the criteria of registered CPK elevation, and again the search language in databases was made to extract new confirmed or repeated diagnoses that could explain the CPKemia. Data collection was implemented through a study-specific case report form (CRF). A detailed data validation plan that identified missing data, out-of-range data and other data inconsistencies in the form of revision checking was implemented on the platform before the start of the study. The collected information was entered into the RedCAP platform, where the CRF was previously located with validation and automated fields if applicable. Discrepancies in the data were reported to the team as queries. Access to the database was restricted through password protection to authorized data management personnel. Descriptive statistics were obtained for numerical variables, including measures of central tendency such as mean and median. Descriptive statistics for categorical variables included a tabulation of frequencies with counts and percentages. The estimation of prevalences was carried out employing Bayesian inference since they allow a greater gain in precision in the estimation of parameters with values below 10%, as well as it was carried out utilizing a beta-binomial model under the binom package of R software. Statistical analyzes were also performed in R software. 2. According to your comments, we decided to implement a few other changes. In the Results section, we would like to add the following paragraphs: Results We found 29 patients with clinical muscular dystrophy in our hospital-based registry, with a mean CPK value of 3231.241, a standard deviation of 5019.543, and a maximum of 22670. We found a combined prevalence of all muscular dystrophies of 4.2 per 100.000 patients attended in our hospital base, Duchenne muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000, limb-girdle muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000, facioscapulohumeral dystrophy of 0.5 per 100.000, Bethem dystrophy, type 2 Emery Dreifuss muscular dystrophy, merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy and myosin storage disease of 0.1 per 100.000. 3. According to your comments, we decided to implement a few other changes. In the Discussion section, we would like to add the following paragraphs: Discussion Several studies have described the different types of muscular dystrophy. However, there is poor evidence analyzing multiple muscular dystrophies within the same population. This leads to heterogeneity in studies regarding prevalences, clinical manifestations, and a good genotype-phenotype correlation. In our study, we found patients with Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophy, facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy, limb-girdle muscular dystrophy, Emery Dreifus muscular dystrophy, merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy, and autosomal dominant congenital myopathy 7A ( Table 2 ). Therefore, to identify a patient with a particular type of disease, clinicians should follow a diagnostic sequence not only for differentiating muscular dystrophy from other inflammatory myopathies but also to discriminate the specific type. *Insert Table 2 In our study, we analyzed the clinical and molecular characteristics of 29 patients with muscular dystrophy in Colombia. According to Mercuri and Muntoni, the prevalence of Duchenne muscular dystrophy is 8-29 per 100 000 boys; Becker muscular dystrophy has a prevalence of 7-29 per 100 000 boys; limb-girdle muscular dystrophy has a prevalence of 0.8-5.7 per 100 000 inhabitants; myotonic dystrophy has an estimated prevalence of 10-6 per 100 000 men, followed by facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy with a prevalence of three per 100 000 men, and myosin storage disease with noncurrent reported prevalence. 14 We found a combined prevalence of all muscular dystrophies of 4.2 per 100.000 among patients treated in our hospital base, Duchenne muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000, limb-girdle muscular dystrophy of 0.6 per 100.000, facioscapulohumeral dystrophy of 0.5 per 100.000, Bethem dystrophy, type 2 Emery Dreifuss muscular dystrophy, merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy and myosin storage disease of 0.1 per 100.000. These prevalences are lower than those reported in the literature and can be explained due to a bias regarding the filter we used to find the patients. We included patients from both genders and all ages who presented with a diagnosis of polymyositis, myoclonus, myopathy, and muscular dystrophy. However, some other suspected cases could have been recorded with different diagnoses, due to misdiagnosis or underdiagnosis, leading to underestimation. Non-diagnosed patients with muscular dystrophy and associated complications can also dissuade physicians from diagnosing adequately. Depending on the type of muscular dystrophy, some complications such as restrictive lung disease, cardiomyopathy, scoliosis, corticosteroid side effects, and psychosocial issues can generally lead professionals to focus only on the direct acute cause of the signs and symptoms and not to search for a long-term systemic etiology like muscular dystrophy. 22 Therefore, clinicians need to figure out that patients presenting with some acute diseases, especially in recurrent cases, might also be associated with muscular dystrophy to keep in mind. Duchenne muscular dystrophy age onset of symptoms is in early childhood around the age of 5 years, it is rapidly progressive and most patients lose ambulation around 10-15 years old, leading them wheelchair dependent. 23 Becker muscular dystrophy symptoms can start around 10-20 years old but in some cases, permanent asymptomatic until adulthood even >30 years, and remain ambulant even until their 60s. 23 , 24 In our study, we found that most patients had similar features as previously reported in the literature. Three patients were revealed with the c.6439-?_6912+?del p.(Glu2146_Val2304del) mutation who presented with a mild phenotype of Becker muscular dystrophy. At the moment of consultation, they had a mean age of 48 years (SD 40-54). All of them presented with hyporeflexia, mild muscle weakness, age onset of symptoms between 10 and 20 years old, and any of the three patients were wheelchair dependant. Greer et al. reported this same mutation in a patient with Becker muscular dystrophy who lost ambulation by the age of 15 years. 25 They suggest that patients with apparently identical exonic deletions are almost certainly going to have different genomic breakpoints and therefore will be missing different intronic regions, and potentially, splicing motifs resulting in different phenotypes. 25 Vengalil et al. also identified that patients with deletions of exons 45-47 are clinically related to the development of cardiomyopathy and earlier wheelchair dependence. 26 Further studies analyzing genotype-phenotype correlation in patients with muscular dystrophy would be helpful to better understand the pathogenesis, and predict phenotypes. Facioscapulohumeral dystrophy has an onset around 10-20 years old. Still, there are some unusual cases where the symptoms are present at the moment of birth, and some others remain asymptomatic their whole life. By the age of 20 years, 50% of the cases have developed symptoms, and eventually, 20% of the affected require a wheelchair, which is consistent with our study where patients with facioscapulohumeral dystrophy developed symptoms after 20 years old. 27 In Bethlem muscular dystrophy, the symptoms can range from congenital to mid-adulthood, been the congenital cases extremely rare. 28 The progression is slow and more than 2/3 of the affected older than 50 years require supportive means (cane, crutches, wheelchair) for outdoor mobility. 29 This is consistent with our study where we found one patient with Bethlem muscular dystrophy who presented as a congenital case that also had supportive means for outdoor mobility. Limb-girdle muscular dystrophy is an extremely heterogeneous group. Over 30 distinct subtypes have been identified, in which the onset of symptoms is at any age with some severe congenital cases and some mild cases starting in adulthood; the severity is also variable. 30 As stated in the literature, we found four patients with variable phenotypes ranging from mild disease with onset of symptoms over 20 years old to more severe cases with early onset of symptoms in childhood. Emery Dreifuss muscular dystrophy onset of symptoms begins in the first two or three decades of life. 31 The progression is slow, and loss of ambulation can occur in the autosomal dominant variant but is rare in the X-linked variant. 32 We found one patient with Emery Dreifuss muscular dystrophy whose symptoms corresponded with those reported in the literature. Merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy is a severe type with symptoms present at the moment of birth, with neonatal profound hypotonia, poor spontaneous movements, and respiratory failure; 33 most affected children do not acquire independent walking. It has been reported that only 15% of individuals acquired independent ambulation, 34 and only a few patients gained the ability to walk with assistance but subsequently lost the ability. 35 In our study, we identified one patient with Merosin-deficient muscular dystrophy who presented with profound hypotonia since birth and was diagnosed at two months old with CPK levels and molecular test. Currently, this patient can adequately sit but has problems with gait. These features correspond with phenotypes previously reported in the literature but without respiratory compromise. We also found a patient with autosomal dominant congenital myopathy 7A with a phenotype that presented in early childhood at 14 months old, with significant proximal and distal muscle weakness. In addition, the patient presented with a severe restrictive pulmonary pattern, and a myopathic pattern in electromyography without cardiac alterations. Currently, at his adult age, this patient has proximal and distal quadriparesis and hypoesthesia of the left hemibody. These features correspond with the previously reported in the literature. On the other hand, 12 patients with muscular dystrophy remained unclassified despite their clinical suspicion and after undergoing molecular tests. As previously exposed, patients with similar exonic deletions are going to have different genomic breakpoints. The number of genetic alterations that can be involved in muscular dystrophies is huge. Therefore, performing a single molecular test sometimes is not enough to identify the specific mutation related to the phenotypic presentation of the patient. We made Table 3 as a tool that shows a brief review of the clinical and paraclinical approach to the different types of muscular dystrophy. Table 4 shows the detailed classification of each type of muscular dystrophy. Barohn et al. propose a series of steps regarding the patient’s symptoms by establishing which muscle-related symptoms patients demonstrate; determining the temporal evolution of the symptoms; interrogating if there is a family history of a myopathic disorder; finding out if there are precipitating factors that trigger episodic weakness or stiffness; asking if there are associated systemic symptoms or signs; and lastly, identifying the distribution of Weakness. 36 After completing the 6 steps, clinicians could now attempt to classify a myopathic disorder according to the patterns of muscle weakness. The findings on the physical examination, particularly the distribution of muscle weakness, should provide additional information in determining the correct diagnosis. 36 Subsequently, CPK levels are extremely helpful for the evaluation of patients with a suspected myopathy. The CPK levels are usually elevated in most patients with muscle disease but may be normal in slowly progressive myopathies. 36 Depending on the degree of CPK levels, it can be useful in distinguishing different forms of muscular dystrophy. As in the case of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, CPK levels can be elevated from 10 to more than 100 times the upper limit of normal, whereas in Facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy, the CPK levels are expected to be elevated from 1 to 10 times the upper limit of normal. We also must rule out nonmyopathic factors that can alter CPK levels such as profound muscle wasting, corticosteroid administration, collagen diseases, alcoholism, or hyperthyroidism. 36 Later, we should look for electromyography and nerve conduction studies. These studies can help to distinguish primary neuropathic from myopathic disorders by confirming that the muscle is the correct site of the lesion and that weakness is not the result of an underlying motor neuron disease, neuropathy, or neuromuscular junction disorder. 36 However, their sensitivity and specificity are low. Normal results provide evidence of a nonsevere neuromuscular disorder. 5 A few years ago, if the electrodiagnostic features suggested a myopathic pattern, a muscle biopsy was recommended. Additionally, we can now diagnose muscular dystrophies through molecular tests without performing muscle biopsies in all suspected patients. Table 5 shows the patterns of muscular dystrophy applied to the 29 participants of the study. Patients in our country do not generally have access to molecular tests, so we perform a clinical characterization based on CPK levels, electromyography, and physical examination. We hope in further studies to have the possibility of performing molecular confirmation. Conclusions Although muscular dystrophies consist of a heterogeneous group of neuromuscular diseases, there are still clinical and paraclinical features that can help physicians to detect any case and perform a good approach and follow-up. In our region, many patients with muscular dystrophy remain underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed, which in consequence it compromises their prognosis without adequate treatment. Therefore, our diagnostic sequence will facilitate physicians to identify any of the most frequent muscular dystrophies. Moreover, many patients with muscular dystrophies can remain without optimal treatment due to confusion with other inflammatory myopathies such as polymyositis, dermatomyositis, and inclusion body myositis. 21 In this study, 13.1% of patients diagnosed these other myopathies ended with confirmed muscular dystrophy after performing a detailed revision of their clinical histories and re-consultation of such patients. For this reason, we suggest implementing at least a 6-month follow-up to rule out newly o persistently elevated CPK levels that might indicate a muscular dystrophy. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Ranganath P. Peer Review Report For: Diagnostic strategies for muscular dystrophies: a cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :930 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.145754.r204452) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-930/v1#referee-response-204452 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Diagnostic strategies for muscular dystrophies:...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/12-930/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/12-930/v2&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/12-930/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Hanna Rodriguez F et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/12-930/v2/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/12-930", templates : { twitter : "Diagnostic strategies for muscular dystrophies: a cross-sectional.... Hanna Rodriguez F et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/12-930/v2" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/132804/159475") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "159475"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "272132": 0, "272133": 0, "272134": 0, "272135": 0, "272129": 0, "199942": 0, "272130": 0, "307724": 0, "262412": 0, "199947": 0, "307725": 0, "262413": 0, "199946": 0, "307726": 0, "307727": 0, "262415": 0, "272137": 0, "199950": 0, "272138": 0, "262410": 0, "272139": 0, "199948": 0, "307732": 0, "262420": 0, "307733": 0, "262421": 0, "262423": 0, "307728": 0, "307729": 0, "262417": 0, "307730": 0, "262418": 0, "307731": 0, "262424": 0, "262426": 0, "262427": 0, "283431": 0, "283432": 0, "283433": 0, "311876": 0, "311877": 0, "311878": 0, "311879": 0, "224583": 0, "311873": 0, "224582": 0, "311874": 0, "224581": 0, "311875": 0, "224580": 0, "224587": 0, "224586": 0, "224585": 0, "224584": 0, "311880": 0, "311881": 0, "311882": 0, "224589": 0, "224588": 0, "194642": 0, "294485": 0, "194643": 0, "294486": 0, "294487": 0, "194641": 0, "194646": 0, "194647": 0, "194644": 0, "194645": 0, "194650": 0, "194648": 0, "194649": 0, "294488": 0, "303484": 0, "303485": 0, "303486": 0, "303487": 0, "303483": 0, "303492": 0, "303488": 0, "303489": 0, "303490": 0, "303491": 0, "323470": 0, "323471": 0, "323476": 0, "323472": 0, "214423": 0, "323473": 0, "323474": 0, "214421": 0, "323475": 0, "214420": 0, "204443": 0, "204441": 0, "254111": 0, "254110": 0, "214430": 0, "254109": 0, "214428": 0, "204444": 0, "254115": 0, "204451": 0, "254114": 0, "214434": 0, "254113": 0, "254112": 0, "214432": 0, "254118": 0, "214438": 0, "254117": 0, "254116": 0, "214436": 0, "204452": 36, "214440": 0, "204466": 0, "204464": 0, "204470": 0, "204469": 0, "204468": 0, "199907": 0, "199909": 0, "199908": 0, "252398": 19, "199927": 0, "272127": 0, "199935": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "81cbd0e4-939a-4223-9d25-d04d09c858ab"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });