ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2015
Capturing the clinical utility of genomic testing: medical recommendations following pediatric microarray.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- How variants of uncertain significance affect clinical decisions: A systematic review.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2026Pooled it
- Association between Copy Number Variation and Response to Social Skills Training in Autism Spectrum Disorder.Scientific reports · 2019Trial
- Genetic and metabolic investigations for neurodevelopmental disorders: position statement of the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists (CCMG).Journal of medical genetics · 2023Article
- Enhancing the Impact of Genomics Research in Autism through Integration of Research Results into Routine Care Pathways-A Case Series.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- Adaptation and validation of the Genetic Counseling Outcome Scale for autism spectrum disorders and related conditions.Journal of genetic counseling · 2021Article
- Genetic Testing in Neurodevelopmental Disorders.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2021Review
- A comparison of genomic laboratory reports and observations that may enhance their clinical utility for providers and patients.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2019Article
- Chromosomal Microarray Analysis as a First-Tier Clinical Diagnostic Test in Patients With Developmental Delay/Intellectual Disability, Autism Spectrum Disorders, and Multiple Congenital Anomalies: A Prospective Multicenter Study in Korea.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2019Article
- Care and cost consequences of pediatric whole genome sequencing compared to chromosome microarray.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2017Article
- Chromosomal Microarrays: Understanding Genetics of Neurodevelopmental Disorders and Congenital Anomalies.Journal of pediatric genetics · 2017Review
- Pre- and post-test genetic counseling for chromosomal and Mendelian disorders.Seminars in perinatology · 2016Review
- Parents' perceptions of the usefulness of chromosomal microarray analysis for children with autism spectrum disorders.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2015Article
- Comparing genetic counselor's and patient's perceptions of needs in prenatal chromosomal microarray testing.Prenatal diagnosis · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interpretation of pediatric chromosome microarray (CMA) results presents diagnostic and medical management challenges. Understanding management practices triggered by CMA will inform clinical utility and resource planning. Using a retrospective cohort design, we extracted clinical and management-related data from the records of 752 children with congenital anomalies and/or developmental delay who underwent CMA in an academic pediatric genetics clinic (2009-2011). Frequency distributions and relative rates (RR) of post-CMA medical recommendations in children with reportable and benign CMA results were calculated. Medical recommendations were provided for 79.6% of children with reportable results and 62.0% of children with benign results. Overall, recommendations included specialist consultation (40.8%), imaging (32.5%), laboratory investigations (17.2%), surveillance (4.6%), and family investigations (4.9%). Clinically significant variants and variants of uncertain clinical significance were associated with higher and slightly higher rates of management recommendations, respectively, compared with benign/no variants (RR=1.34; 95% CI (1.22-1.47); RR=1.23; 95% CI (1.09-1.38)). Recommendation rates for clinically significant versus uncertain results depended upon how uncertainty was classified (RRbroad=1.09; 95% CI (0.99-1.2); RRnarrow=1.12; 95% CI (1.02-1.24)). Recommendation rates also varied by the child's age and provider type. In conclusion, medical recommendations follow CMA for the majority of children. Compared with benign CMA results, clinically significant CMA variants are a significant driver of pediatric medical recommendations. Variants of uncertain clinical significance drive recommendations, but to a lesser extent. As a broadening range of specialists will need to respond to CMA results, targeted capacity building is warranted.
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.