Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17389918›Full record

ArticlePloS one2007

Clinical implementation of chromosomal microarray analysis: summary of 2513 postnatal cases.

Xinyan Lu, Chad A Shaw, Ankita Patel, Jiangzhen Li, M Lance Cooper, William R Wells, Cathy M Sullivan, Trilochan Sahoo, Svetlana A Yatsenko, Carlos A Bacino and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
20.5field-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

77 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 245 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Array-based technology and recommendations for utilization in medical genetics practice for detection of chromosomal abnormalities.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2010
    Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. A novel microduplication of ARID1B: Clinical, genetic, and proteomic findings.American journal of medical genetics. Part A · 2017
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Dysmorphology at a distance: results of a web-based diagnostic service.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2014
    Article

17 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

17 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xinyan LuDepartment of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Chad A Shaw
Ankita Patel
Jiangzhen Li
M Lance Cooper
William R Wells
Cathy M Sullivan
Trilochan Sahoo
Svetlana A Yatsenko
Carlos A Bacino
Pawel Stankiewicz
Zhishu Ou
A Craig Chinault
Arthur L Beaudet
James R Lupski
Sau W Cheung
Patricia A Ward
Baylor College of Medicine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArray Comparative Genomic Hybridization (a-CGH) is a powerful molecular cytogenetic tool to detect genomic imbalances and study disease mechanism and pathogenesis. We report our experience with the clinical implementation of this high resolution human genome analysis, referred to as Chromosomal Microarray Analysis (CMA). METHODS AND

findingsCMA was performed clinically on 2513 postnatal samples from patients referred with a variety of clinical phenotypes. The initial 775 samples were studied using CMA array version 4 and the remaining 1738 samples were analyzed with CMA version 5 containing expanded genomic coverage. Overall, CMA identified clinically relevant genomic imbalances in 8.5% of patients: 7.6% using V4 and 8.9% using V5. Among 117 cases referred for additional investigation of a known cytogenetically detectable rearrangement, CMA identified the majority (92.5%) of the genomic imbalances. Importantly, abnormal CMA findings were observed in 5.2% of patients (98/1872) with normal karyotypes/FISH results, and V5, with expanded genomic coverage, enabled a higher detection rate in this category than V4. For cases without cytogenetic results available, 8.0% (42/524) abnormal CMA results were detected; again, V5 demonstrated an increased ability to detect abnormality. Improved diagnostic potential of CMA is illustrated by 90 cases identified with 51 cryptic microdeletions and 39 predicted apparent reciprocal microduplications in 13 specific chromosomal regions associated with 11 known genomic disorders. In addition, CMA identified copy number variations (CNVs) of uncertain significance in 262 probands; however, parental studies usually facilitated clinical interpretation. Of these, 217 were interpreted as familial variants and 11 were determined to be de novo; the remaining 34 await parental studies to resolve the clinical significance.

conclusionsThis large set of clinical results demonstrates the significantly improved sensitivity of CMA for the detection of clinically relevant genomic imbalances and highlights the need for comprehensive genetic counseling to facilitate accurate clinical correlation and interpretation.

Indexed as

Oligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisAllelic ImbalanceChromosomes, HumanComparative Genomic HybridizationGenetic VariationGenome, HumanHumansInfant, NewbornKaryotypingMicroarray AnalysisPhenotypeReference Values

Identifiers

PMID17389918
PMCPMC1828620
OpenAlexW2042524059

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.