Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11032607›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry2000

Paradox of a better test for Huntington's disease.

A Maat-Kievit, M Vegter-van der Vlis, M Zoeteweij, M Losekoot, A van Haeringen, R Roos

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 82 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Locus of control in patients with Huntington disease: a cross-sectional study.The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association · 2020
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

A Maat-KievitDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Centre, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands. J.A.Maat@KGC.AZL.NL
M Vegter-van der Vlis
M Zoeteweij
M Losekoot
A van Haeringen
R Roos
Leiden University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo describe the consequences of the identification of the Huntington's disease (HD) mutation on predictive and prenatal testing.

methodsA retrospective study was performed considering the test applicants, procedures, and results before and after the identification of the mutation. 1032 people at risk for Huntington's disease in The Netherlands were included, of whom 741 applied for the predictive test in the period 1987 to 1997 in Leiden at the Department of Clinical Genetics, and after 1994, also in the other seven clinical genetics departments in The Netherlands. Uptake, sociodemographic variables, and test results, taken before and after the mutation was identified, are described.

resultsThe uptake of the predictive test in the period studied was 24% and for the prenatal test 2%. No differences were noted in numbers and sociodemographic data between the period before and after the mutation was identified. After an initial increase in test applicants, a decrease was seen after 1995. After 1993 a significant increase of 25% at risk test applicants and a significant decrease of prenatal exclusion tests was noticed. Only 7% asked for reassessment by mutation analysis. New problems arose after the identification of the mutation, such as the option of reassessing the risk obtained by linkage analysis, direct mutation testing of 25% at risk persons with a parent who does not wish to know, new choices regarding reproduction, and new uncertainties for carriers of intermediate and reduced penetrance alleles and for their offspring and relatives.

conclusionsAlthough predictive testing has become reliable and available for every person at risk since the mutation has been identified, the uptake of predictive and prenatal tests fell short of expectation, no change in sociodemographic variables was seen, and a decrease in number of applicants was noted. Furthermore, new uncertainties, psychological problems, and questions arose.

Indexed as

Prenatal DiagnosisAdultAgedAge DistributionFemaleGenetic TestingHumansHuntington DiseaseMaleMiddle AgedMutationNetherlandsPredictive Value of TestsPregnancyRetrospective StudiesSex Distribution

Identifiers

PMID11032607
PMCPMC1763393
OpenAlexW2092577342

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.