Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29536202›Full record

ReviewJournal of inherited metabolic disease2018

Multiomics tools for the diagnosis and treatment of rare neurological disease.

L M Crowther, M Poms, Barbara Plecko

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of inherited metabolic disease, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Proteomics in Inherited Metabolic Disorders.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

L M CrowtherDivision of Child Neurology, University Children's Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
M PomsDivision of Child Neurology, University Children's Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Barbara PleckoDivision of Child Neurology, University Children's Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. barbara.plecko@medunigraz.at.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conventional workup of rare neurological disease is frequently hampered by diagnostic delay or lack of diagnosis. While biomarkers have been established for many neurometabolic disorders, improved methods are required for diagnosis of previously unidentified or underreported causes of rare neurological disease. This would result in a higher diagnostic yield and increased patient numbers required for interventional studies. Recent studies using next-generation sequencing and metabolomics have led to identification of novel disease-causing genes and biomarkers. This combined approach can assist in overcoming challenges associated with analyzing and interpreting the large amount of data obtained from each technique. In particular, metabolomics can support the pathogenicity of sequence variants in genes encoding enzymes or transporters involved in metabolic pathways. Moreover, metabolomics can show the broader perturbation caused by inborn errors of metabolism and identify a metabolic fingerprint of metabolic disorders. As such, using "omics" has great potential to meet the current needs for improved diagnosis and elucidation of rare neurological disease.

Indexed as

BiomarkersDNA Mutational AnalysisGenomicsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMetabolic Networks and PathwaysMetabolomicsNervous System DiseasesRare DiseasesBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID29536202
PMCPMC5959950

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.