ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2017
Cytogenomic assessment of the diagnosis of 93 patients with developmental delay and multiple congenital abnormalities: The Brazilian experience.
Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cri-du-Chat Syndrome: Revealing a Familial Atypical Deletion in 5p.Molecular syndromology · 2023Article
- Article
- Genetic evaluation of newborns with critical congenital heart defects admitted to the intensive care unit.European journal of pediatrics · 2021Article
- Breakpoint delineation in 5p- patients leads to new insights about microcephaly and the typical high-pitched cry.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2020Article
- Concordance of copy number abnormality detection using SNP arrays and Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification (MLPA) in acute lymphoblastic leukaemia.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- CGH analysis in Colombian patients: findings of 1374 arrays in a seven-year study.Molecular cytogenetics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe human genome contains several types of variations, such as copy number variations, that can generate specific clinical abnormalities. Different techniques are used to detect these changes, and obtaining an unequivocal diagnosis is important to understand the physiopathology of the diseases. The objective of this study was to assess the diagnostic capacity of multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification and array techniques for etiologic diagnosis of syndromic patients.
methodsWe analyzed 93 patients with developmental delay and multiple congenital abnormalities using multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplifications and arrays.
resultsMultiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification using different kits revealed several changes in approximately 33.3% of patients. The use of arrays with different platforms showed an approximately 53.75% detection rate for at least one pathogenic change and a 46.25% detection rate for patients with benign changes. A concomitant assessment of the two techniques showed an approximately 97.8% rate of concordance, although the results were not the same in all cases. In contrast with the array results, the MLPA technique detected ∼70.6% of pathogenic changes.
conclusionThe obtained results corroborated data reported in the literature, but the overall detection rate was higher than the rates previously reported, due in part to the criteria used to select patients. Although arrays are the most efficient tool for diagnosis, they are not always suitable as a first-line diagnostic approach because of their high cost for large-scale use in developing countries. Thus, clinical and laboratory interactions with skilled technicians are required to target patients for the most effective and beneficial molecular diagnosis.
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.