Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24399097›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2014

Points to consider in the clinical use of NGS panels for mitochondrial disease: an analysis of gene inclusion and consent forms.

Julia Platt, Rachel Cox, Gregory M Enns

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. My Identical Twin Sequenced our Genome.Journal of genetic counseling · 2017
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Julia PlattDepartment of Pediatrics, Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Drive, H-315, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA, jplatt@lpch.org.
Rachel Cox
Gregory M Enns
Lucile Packard Children's Hospital · USStanford University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mitochondrial next generation sequencing (NGS) panels offer single-step analysis of the numerous nuclear genes involved in the structure, function, and maintenance of mitochondria. However, the complexities of mitochondrial biology and genetics raise points for consideration in clinical use of these tests. To understand the current status of mitochondrial genetic testing, we assessed the gene offerings and consent forms of mitochondrial NGS panels available from seven US-based clinical laboratories. The NGS panels varied markedly in number of genes (101-1204 genes), and the proportion of genes causing "classic" mitochondrial diseases and their phenocopies ranged widely between labs (18 %-94 % of panel contents). All panels included genes not associated with classic mitochondrial diseases (6 %-28 % of panel contents), including genes causing adult-onset neurodegenerative disorders, cancer predisposition, and other genetic syndromes or inborn errors of metabolism. Five of the panels included genes that are not listed in OMIM to be associated with a disease phenotype (5 %-49 % of panel contents). None of the consent documents reviewed had options for patient preference regarding receipt of incidental findings. These findings raise points of discussion applicable to mitochondrial diagnostics, but also to the larger arenas of exome and genome sequencing, including the need to consider the boundaries between clinical and research testing, the necessity of appropriate informed consent, and the responsibilities of clinical laboratories and clinicians. Based on these findings, we recommend careful evaluation by laboratories of the genes offered on NGS panels, clear communication of the predicted phenotypes, and revised consent forms to allow patients to make choices about receiving incidental findings. We hope that our analysis and recommendations will help to maximize the considerable clinical utility of NGS panels for the diagnosis of mitochondrial disease.

Indexed as

Informed ConsentHumansMitochondrial DiseasesRisk AssessmentSequence Analysis

Identifiers

PMID24399097
OpenAlexW1995006536

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.