ReviewJournal of applied genetics2016
Comparison of two subtelomeric assays for the screening of chromosomal rearrangements: analysis of 383 patients, literature review and further recommendations.
Review in Journal of applied genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The diagnostic yield of intellectual disability: combined whole genome low-coverage sequencing and medical exome sequencing.BMC medical genomics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intellectual disability (ID) and global development delay (GDD) are caused by genetic factors such as subtelomeric rearrangements (SR) in 25 % of patients. There are several assays currently available to detect SR, but subtelomeric fluorescence in situ hybridisation (Subt-FISH) and subtelomeric multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (Subt-MLPA) have been the most frequently used. However, the diagnostic yield of each technique has not been compared. We reviewed the results of SR screening over a ten-year period in Chilean patients with ID/GDD using Subt-FISH and/or Subt-MLPA, compared the diagnostic yield of both tools and reviewed the corresponding literature. A total of 383 cases were included in this study, of which 53.8 % were males. The overall diagnostic yield was 8.9 % between both methods, but Subt-MLPA showed a higher performance than Subt-FISH (p = 0.002). A total of 4,181 patients with ID/GDD have been studied worldwide with Subt-MLPA and other subtelomeric assays, and 244 (5.84 %) had a pathogenic SR. It is estimated that Subt-MLPA may detect 92.6 % of the total cases with SR. The capacity of detecting tandem duplication and other critical regions, as well as the use of two MLPA kits, may explain the higher performance of this tool over Subt-FISH. Therefore, we recommend the use of this subtelomeric method as a cost-effective way to study ID/GDD patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26069167What 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.