ArticlePloS one2016
Retinal Diseases Caused by Mutations in Genes Not Specifically Associated with the Clinical Diagnosis.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genotype-phenotype associations in Alström syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of medical genetics · 2023Pooled it
- Article
- Article
- Dominant Cone Rod Dystrophy, Previously Assigned to a Missense Variant in RIMS1, Is Fully Explained by Co-Inheritance of a Dominant Allele of PROM1.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2022Article
- Exploring the mutational landscape of genes associated with inherited retinal disease using large genomic datasets: identifying loss of function intolerance and outlying propensities for missense changes.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Next-generation sequencing to solve complex inherited retinal dystrophy: A case series of multiple genes contributing to disease in extended families.Molecular vision · 2017Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWhen seeking a confirmed molecular diagnosis in the research setting, patients with one descriptive diagnosis of retinal disease could carry pathogenic variants in genes not specifically associated with that description. However, this event has not been evaluated systematically in clinical diagnostic laboratories that validate fully all target genes to minimize false negatives/positives.
methodsWe performed targeted next-generation sequencing analysis on 207 ocular disease-related genes for 42 patients whose DNA had been tested negative for disease-specific panels of genes known to be associated with retinitis pigmentosa, Leber congenital amaurosis, or exudative vitreoretinopathy.
resultsPathogenic variants, including single nucleotide variations and copy number variations, were identified in 9 patients, including 6 with variants in syndromic retinal disease genes and 3 whose molecular diagnosis could not be distinguished easily from their submitted clinical diagnosis, accounting for 21% (9/42) of the unsolved cases.
conclusionOur study underscores the clinical and genetic heterogeneity of retinal disorders and provides valuable reference to estimate the fraction of clinical samples whose retinal disorders could be explained by genes not specifically associated with the corresponding clinical diagnosis. Our data suggest that sequencing a larger set of retinal disorder related genes can increase the molecular diagnostic yield, especially for clinically hard-to-distinguish cases.
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.