Evidence Hub

Accuracy of the molecular diagnosis of duchenne and becker muscular dystrophy: A systematic review with meta-analysis

Chavez-Ecos FA, Quispe-Vicuña C, Malaga M, Pacheco-Barrios N, Huerta-Rosario A, Velasquez-Rimachi V, Martinez Esteban P, Alva-Diaz C

PloS one, 2026

4,333 participants

Abstract

Introduction: Recently, Molecular diagnosis of Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) and Becker muscular dystrophy (BMD) has become increasingly important in the management of these patients, with techniques such as multiplex ligation-dependent amplification (MLPA) and next-generation sequencing (NGS) coming to the fore. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of MLPA, NGS, and the algorithm MLPA-NGS for confirmatory diagnosis of DMD/BMD.

Methods: We systematically searched databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane and Web of Science) until July 2025 for studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of MLPA and/or NGS testing in patients with clinical suspicion of DMD, considering multiplex PCR or biopsy as the reference test. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model to estimate the sensitivity, specificity, and detection rate of each test. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias and the GRADE criteria were used to identify the certainty of evidence.

Results: We included 10 studies (3786 patients) evaluating the use of MLPA and 14 studies (4333 patients) evaluating the use of NGS. For MLPA, the sensitivity was 0.80 (95%CI: 0.76-0.84; I2: 86%), the specificity was 0.93 (95%CI: 0.87-0.96; I2: 16%), and AUC 0.90 (CI-95%: 0.89-0.92). For NGS, the detection rate was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.61-0.87; I2: 94%). Furthermore, the detection rate increased to 0.97 (95% CI: 0.94-0.99; I2: 95%) when NGS was performed after MLPA. We observe a low…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 4,333 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free