Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27243974›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Targeted Next Generation Sequencing in Patients with Inborn Errors of Metabolism.

Dèlia Yubero, Núria Brandi, Aida Ormazabal, Àngels Garcia-Cazorla, Belén Pérez-Dueñas, Jaime Campistol, Antonia Ribes, Francesc Palau, Rafael Artuch, Judith Armstrong and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Molecular Modelling Hurdle in the Next-Generation Sequencing Era.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Case report: 'AARS2 leukodystrophy'.Molecular genetics and metabolism reports · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Biallelic mutation ofNeurology. Genetics · 2020
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

11 authors.

Dèlia YuberoDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry and Institut d'Investigació Sanitària Sant Joan de Déu, Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, Barcelona, Spain.
Núria BrandiFacultat de Medicina, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Aida OrmazabalDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry and Institut d'Investigació Sanitària Sant Joan de Déu, Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, Barcelona, Spain.
Àngels Garcia-CazorlaDepartment of Neurology, Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, Barcelona, Spain.
Belén Pérez-DueñasDepartment of Neurology, Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, Barcelona, Spain.
Jaime CampistolDepartment of Neurology, Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, Barcelona, Spain.
Antonia RibesInstitut de Bioquímica Clínica, Hospital Clínic i Provincial, Barcelona, Spain.
Francesc PalauMolecular and Genetics Medicine Section, Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, Barcelona, Spain.
Rafael ArtuchDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry and Institut d'Investigació Sanitària Sant Joan de Déu, Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, Barcelona, Spain.
Judith ArmstrongMolecular and Genetics Medicine Section, Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, Barcelona, Spain.
Working Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNext-generation sequencing (NGS) technology has allowed the promotion of genetic diagnosis and are becoming increasingly inexpensive and faster. To evaluate the utility of NGS in the clinical field, a targeted genetic panel approach was designed for the diagnosis of a set of inborn errors of metabolism (IEM). The final aim of the study was to compare the findings for the diagnostic yield of NGS in patients who presented with consistent clinical and biochemical suspicion of IEM with those obtained for patients who did not have specific biomarkers.

methodsThe subjects studied (n = 146) were classified into two categories: Group 1 (n = 81), which consisted of patients with clinical and biochemical suspicion of IEM, and Group 2 (n = 65), which consisted of IEM cases with clinical suspicion and unspecific biomarkers. A total of 171 genes were analyzed using a custom targeted panel of genes followed by Sanger validation.

resultsGenetic diagnosis was achieved in 50% of patients (73/146). In addition, the diagnostic yield obtained for Group 1 was 78% (63/81), and this rate decreased to 15.4% (10/65) in Group 2 (X2 = 76.171; p < 0.0001).

conclusionsA rapid and effective genetic diagnosis was achieved in our cohort, particularly the group that had both clinical and biochemical indications for the diagnosis.

Indexed as

DNA Mutational AnalysisGenetic MarkersHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMetabolism, Inborn ErrorsMutationGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID27243974
PMCPMC4887012

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.