ArticleScientific reports2018
A Multicentric Brazilian Investigative Study of Copy Number Variations in Patients with Congenital Anomalies and Intellectual Disability.
Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Implementation of chromosomal microarrays in a cohort of patients with intellectual disability at the Argentinean public health system.Molecular biology reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genomic imbalances are the most common cause of congenital anomalies (CA) and intellectual disability (ID). The aims of this study were to identify copy number variations (CNVs) in 416 patients with CA and ID from 5 different genetics centers within 4 different states by using the Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification (MLPA) technique and to apply the chromosomal microarray (CMA) methodology in selected cases. The samples were analyzed by MLPA kits P064, P036, P070 and P250. Positive results were found in 97/416 (23.3%) patients. CMA was applied in 14 selected cases. In 6/14 (42.85%) patients, CMA detected other copy number variations not detected by the MLPA studies. Although CMA is indispensable for genotype refinement, the technique is still unfeasible in some countries as a routine analysis due to economic and technical limitations. In these cases, clinical evaluation followed by karyotyping and MLPA analysis is a helpful and affordable solution for diagnostic purposes.
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.