Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29261183›Full record

ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2018

Revisiting mitochondrial diagnostic criteria in the new era of genomics.

Peter Witters, Ann Saada, Tomas Honzik, Marketa Tesarova, Stephanie Kleinle, Rita Horvath, Amy Goldstein, Eva Morava

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. RNA Sequencing Resolves Cryptic Pathogenic Variants in Mitochondrial Disease.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2026
    Article
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. A NovelMolecular syndromology · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Peter WittersDepartment of Paediatrics and Metabolic Center, University Hospitals Leuven, Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Ann SaadaMonique and Jacques Roboh Department of Genetic Research, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Centre, Jerusalem Israel.
Tomas HonzikDepartment of Pediatrics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
Marketa TesarovaDepartment of Pediatrics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
Stephanie KleinleMedical Genetics Centre, Munich, Germany.
Rita HorvathInstitute of Genetic Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Amy GoldsteinTulane University Medical School, Hayward Genetics Center, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Eva MoravaDepartment of Paediatrics and Metabolic Center, University Hospitals Leuven, Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Charles University · CZKU Leuven · BEMedical Genetics Center · DENewcastle University · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G1000848Medical Research Council MR/N010035/1Medical Research Council MR/N025431/1Medical Research Council MR/N025431/2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PurposeDiagnosing primary mitochondrial diseases (MDs) is challenging in clinical practice. The mitochondrial disease criteria (MDC) have been developed to quantify the clinical picture and evaluate the probability of an underlying MD and the need for a muscle biopsy. In this new genetic era with next-generation sequencing in routine practice, we aim to validate the diagnostic value of MDC.MethodsWe retrospectively studied MDC in a multicenter cohort of genetically confirmed primary MD patients.ResultsWe studied 136 patients (61 male, 91 nuclear DNA (nDNA) mutations). Forty-five patients (33%) had probable MD and 69 (51%) had definite MD according to the MDC. A muscle biopsy was performed in 63 patients (47%). Patients with nDNA mutations versus mitochondrial DNA mutations were younger (6.4 ± 9.7 versus 19.5 ± 17.3 y) and had higher MDC (7.07 ± 1.12/8 versus 5.69 ± 1.94/8). At a cutoff of 6.5/8, the sensitivity to diagnose patients with nDNA mutations is 72.5% with a positive predictive value of 69.5%. In the nDNA mutation group, whole-exome sequencing could diagnose patients with lower scores (MDC (6.84 ± 1.51/8) compared to Sanger sequencing MDC (7.44 ± 1.13/8, P = 0.025)). Moreover 7/8 patients diagnosed with possible MD by MDC were diagnosed by whole-exome sequencing.ConclusionMDC remain very useful in the clinical diagnosis of MD, in interpreting whole-exome results and deciding on the need for performing muscle biopsy.

Indexed as

Genome, MitochondrialGenomicsAdolescentAdultAgedChildChild, PreschoolFemaleGenes, MitochondrialGenetic Association StudiesGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic TestingHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMale

Identifiers

PMID29261183
OpenAlexW2767040067

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.