ArticlePediatric research2017
Application of high-resolution array comparative genomic hybridization in children with unknown syndromic microcephaly.
Article in Pediatric research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genomic Analysis of Korean Patient With Microcephaly.Frontiers in genetics · 2020Article
- The Clinical Diagnostic Utility of Array CGH in Children with Syndromic Microcephaly.Annals of Indian Academy of NeurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackroundMicrocephaly can either be isolated or it may coexist with other neurological entities and/or multiple congenital anomalies, known as syndromic microcephaly. Although many syndromic cases can be classified based on the characteristic phenotype, some others remain uncertain and require further investigation. The present study describes the application of array-comparative genomic hybridization (array-CGH) as a diagnostic tool for the study of patients with clinically unknown syndromic microcephaly.MethodsFrom a cohort of 210 unrelated patients referred with syndromic microcephaly, we applied array-CGH analysis in 53 undiagnosed cases. In all the 53 cases except one, previous standard karyotype was negative. High-resolution 4 × 180K and 1 × 244K Agilent arrays were used in this study.ResultsIn 25 out of the 53 patients with microcephaly among other phenotypic anomalies, array-CGH revealed copy number variations (CNVs) ranging in size between 15 kb and 31.6 Mb. The identified CNVs were definitely causal for microcephaly in 11/53, probably causal in 7/53, and not causal for microcephaly in 7/53 patients. Genes potentially contributing to brain deficit were revealed in 16/53 patients.ConclusionsArray-CGH contributes to the elucidation of undefined syndromic microcephalic cases by permitting the discovery of novel microdeletions and/or microduplications. It also allows a more precise genotype-phenotype correlation by the accurate definition of the breakpoints in the deleted/duplicated regions.
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.