Trial reportGenetic testing and molecular biomarkers2013
Utilization of genetic testing prior to subspecialist referral for cerebellar ataxia.
Trial report in Genetic testing and molecular biomarkers, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A diagnostic ceiling for exome sequencing in cerebellar ataxia and related neurological disorders.Human mutation · 2020Article
- The need to develop a patient-centered precision medicine model for adults with chronic disability.Expert review of molecular diagnostics · 2017Article
- Clinical exome sequencing in neurologic disease.Neurology. Clinical practice · 2016Review
- Clinical exome sequencing in neurogenetic and neuropsychiatric disorders.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2016Review
- Exome sequencing in the clinical diagnosis of sporadic or familial cerebellar ataxia.JAMA neurology · 2014Article
- Genetics: Utility of next-generation sequencing in ataxias.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the utilization of laboratory testing in the diagnosis of cerebellar ataxia, including the completeness of initial standard testing for acquired causes, the early use of genetic testing, and associated clinical and nonclinical factors, among a cohort referred for subspecialty consultation.
methodsData were abstracted from records of 95 consecutive ataxia patients referred to one neurogenetics subspecialist from 2006-2010 and linked to publicly available data on characteristics of referral clinicians. Multivariable logistic and linear regression models were used to analyze unique associations of clinical and nonclinical factors with laboratory investigation of acquired causes and with early genetic testing prior to referral.
resultsAt referral, 27 of 95 patients lacked evidence of any of 14 laboratory studies suggested for initial work-up of an acquired cause for ataxia (average number of tests=4.5). In contrast, 92% of patients had undergone brain magnetic resonance imaging prior to referral. Overall, 41.1% (n=39) had genetic testing prior to referral; there was no association between family history of ataxia and obtaining genetic testing prior to referral (p=0.39). The level of early genetic testing was 31.6%, primarily due to genetic testing despite an incomplete laboratory evaluation for acquired causes and no family history. A positive family history was consistently associated with less extensive laboratory testing (p=0.004), and referral by a neurologist was associated with higher levels of early genetic testing.
conclusionsAmong consecutive referrals to a single center, a substantial proportion of sporadic cases had genetic testing without evidence of a work-up for acquired causes. Better strategies to guide decision making and subspecialty referrals in rare neurologic disorders are needed, given the cost and consequences of genetic testing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.