Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22396478›Full record

ReviewThe journal of histochemistry and cytochemistry : official journal of the Histochemistry Society2012

Microdeletion and microduplication syndromes.

Anja Weise, Kristin Mrasek, Elisabeth Klein, Milene Mulatinho, Juan C Llerena, David Hardekopf, Sona Pekova, Samarth Bhatt, Nadezda Kosyakova, Thomas Liehr

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The journal of histochemistry and cytochemistry : official journal of the Histochemistry Society, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 78 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
78citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

78 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. A retrospective analysis of 6942 amniocentesis cases.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing in Germany.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  20. Review

18 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

10 authors.

Anja WeiseJena University Hospital, Friedrich Schiller University, Institute of Human Genetics, Jena, Germany. Anja.Weise@mti.uni-jena.de
Kristin Mrasek
Elisabeth Klein
Milene Mulatinho
Juan C Llerena
David Hardekopf
Sona Pekova
Samarth Bhatt
Nadezda Kosyakova
Thomas Liehr

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The widespread use of whole genome analysis based on array comparative genomic hybridization in diagnostics and research has led to a continuously growing number of microdeletion and microduplication syndromes (MMSs) connected to certain phenotypes. These MMSs also include increasing instances in which the critical region can be reciprocally deleted or duplicated. This review catalogues the currently known MMSs and the corresponding critical regions including phenotypic consequences. Besides the pathogenic pathways leading to such rearrangements, the different detection methods and their limitations are discussed. Finally, the databases available for distinguishing between reported benign or pathogenic copy number alterations are highlighted. Overall, a review of MMSs that previously were also denoted "genomic disorders" or "contiguous gene syndromes" is given.

Indexed as

Gene DeletionGene DuplicationChromosome AberrationsDatabases, FactualGenome, HumanHumansIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceIntellectual DisabilityNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisSyndrome

Identifiers

PMID22396478
PMCPMC3351230

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.