ArticlePeerJ2016
An inferential study of the phenotype for the chromosome 15q24 microdeletion syndrome: a bootstrap analysis.
Article in PeerJ, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In January 2012, a review of the cases of chromosome 15q24 microdeletion syndrome was published. However, this study did not include inferential statistics. The aims of the present study were to update the literature search and calculate confidence intervals for the prevalence of each phenotype using bootstrap methodology. Published case reports of patients with the syndrome that included detailed information about breakpoints and phenotype were sought and 36 were included. Deletions in megabase (Mb) pairs were determined to calculate the size of the interstitial deletion of the phenotypes studied in 2012. To determine confidence intervals for the prevalence of the phenotype and the interstitial loss, we used bootstrap methodology. Using the bootstrap percentiles method, we found wide variability in the prevalence of the different phenotypes (3-100%). The mean interstitial deletion size was 2.72 Mb (95% CI [2.35-3.10 Mb]). In comparison with our work, which expanded the literature search by 45 months, there were differences in the prevalence of 17% of the phenotypes, indicating that more studies are needed to analyze this rare disease.
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.