Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29543227›Full record

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

Meeting the challenges of implementing rapid genomic testing in acute pediatric care.

Zornitza Stark, Sebastian Lunke, Gemma R Brett, Natalie B Tan, Rachel Stapleton, Smitha Kumble, Alison Yeung, Dean G Phelan, Belinda Chong, Miriam Fanjul-Fernandez and 13 more

Abstract read
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 91 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
91citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

91 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Cost-effectiveness of paediatric rapid genomic testing: a commentary.International journal for advancing practice · 2026
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

31 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

23 authors.

Zornitza StarkVictorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia. zornitza.stark@vcgs.org.au.
Sebastian LunkeVictorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Gemma R BrettVictorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Natalie B TanVictorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Rachel StapletonVictorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Smitha KumbleVictorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Alison YeungVictorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Dean G PhelanVictorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Belinda ChongVictorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Miriam Fanjul-FernandezVictorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Justine E MarumVictorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Matthew HunterMonash Genetics, Monash Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Anna JarmolowiczVictorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Yael PrawerMelbourne Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, Australia.
Jessica R RiseleyVictorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Matthew ReganMonash Genetics, Monash Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Justine ElliottVictorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Melissa MartynMelbourne Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, Australia.
Stephanie BestCentre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Melbourne, Australia.
Tiong Y TanVictorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Clara L GaffMelbourne Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, Australia.
Susan M WhiteVictorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of the study was to implement and prospectively evaluate the outcomes of a rapid genomic diagnosis program at two pediatric tertiary centers.

methodsRapid singleton whole-exome sequencing (rWES) was performed in acutely unwell pediatric patients with suspected monogenic disorders. Laboratory and clinical barriers to implementation were addressed through continuous multidisciplinary review of process parameters. Diagnostic and clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of rWES were assessed.

resultsOf 40 enrolled patients, 21 (52.5%) received a diagnosis, with median time to report of 16 days (range 9-109 days). A result was provided during the first hospital admission in 28 of 36 inpatients (78%). Clinical management changed in 12 of the 21 diagnosed patients (57%), including the provision of lifesaving treatment, avoidance of invasive biopsies, and palliative care guidance. The cost per diagnosis was AU$13,388 (US$10,453). Additional cost savings from avoidance of planned tests and procedures and reduced length of stay are estimated to be around AU$543,178 (US$424,101). The clear relative advantage of rWES, joint clinical and laboratory leadership, and the creation of a multidisciplinary "rapid team" were key to successful implementation.

conclusionRapid genomic testing in acute pediatrics is not only feasible but also cost-effective, and has high diagnostic and clinical utility. It requires a whole-of-system approach for successful implementation.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisExomeExome SequencingFemaleGenetic TestingGenome, HumanGenomicsHumansMalePathology, MolecularPediatricsclinical utilitycost-effectivenessimplementationrapidwhole-exome sequencing

Identifiers

PMID29543227

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.