Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10851249›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical genetics2000

Perfect endings: a review of subtelomeric probes and their use in clinical diagnosis.

S J Knight, J Flint

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical genetics, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
15.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 295 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Epigenetic and evolutionary features of ape subterminal heterochromatin.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Subtelomeric Rearrangements in Patients with Recurrent Miscarriage.International journal of fertility & sterility · 2018
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. FISH for pre-implantation genetic diagnosis.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2011
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

S J KnightInstitute of Molecular Medicine, John Radcliffe Hospital, Headington, Oxford OX3 9DS, UK.
J Flint
John Radcliffe Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chromosomal rearrangements involving the ends of chromosomes (telomeres) are emerging as an important cause of human genetic diseases. This review describes the development of first and second generation sets of telomere specific clones, together with advances in fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) technology, which have made the prospect of screening for telomeric rearrangements a realistic goal. Initial FISH studies using the telomere specific clones indicate that they will be a valuable diagnostic tool for the investigation of mental retardation, the characterisation of known abnormalities detected by conventional cytogenetic analysis, spontaneous recurrent miscarriages, infertility, haematological malignancies, and preimplantation diagnosis, as well as other fields of clinical interest. In addition, they may help investigate telomere structure and function and can be used in the identification of dosage sensitive genes involved in human genetic disease.

Indexed as

Chromosome AberrationsChromosome DisordersCloning, MolecularDNA ProbesGenetic TestingHematologic NeoplasmsHumansIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceIntellectual DisabilityPreimplantation DiagnosisTelomereDNA Probes

Identifiers

PMID10851249
PMCPMC1734614
OpenAlexW2171099960

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.