Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30847666›Full record

ArticleNetherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation2019

Large next-generation sequencing gene panels in genetic heart disease: yield of pathogenic variants and variants of unknown significance.

F H M van Lint, O R F Mook, M Alders, H Bikker, R H Lekanne Dit Deprez, I Christiaans

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Functional Profiling ofCirculation. Genomic and precision medicine · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Novel causativeFrontiers in genetics · 2025
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Mechanisms of RBM20 Cardiomyopathy: Insights From Model Systems.Circulation. Genomic and precision medicine · 2024
    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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

F H M van LintDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
O R F MookDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
M AldersDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
H BikkerDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
R H Lekanne Dit DeprezDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
I ChristiaansDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. i.christiaans@umcg.nl.
University of Amsterdam · NLUniversity of Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenetic heterogeneity is common in inherited cardiac diseases. Next-generation sequencing gene panels are therefore suitable for genetic diagnosis. We describe the results of implementation of cardiomyopathy and arrhythmia gene panels in clinical care.

methodsWe present detection rates for variants with unknown (class 3), likely (class 4), and certain (class 5) pathogenicity in cardiogenetic gene panels since their introduction into diagnostics.

resultsIn 936 patients tested on the arrhythmia panel, likely pathogenic and pathogenic variants were detected in 8.8% (4.6% class 5; 4.2% class 4), and one or multiple class 3 variants in 34.8%. In 1970 patients tested on the cardiomyopathy panel, likely pathogenic and pathogenic variants were detected in 19.8% (12.0% class 5; 7.9% class 4), and one or multiple class 3 variants in 40.8%. Detection rates of all different classes of variants increased with the increasing number of genes on the cardiomyopathy gene panel. Multiple variants were detected in 11.7% and 28.5% of patients on the arrhythmia and cardiomyopathy panels respectively. In more recent larger versions of the cardiomyopathy gene panel the detection rate of likely pathogenic and pathogenic variants only slightly increased, but was associated with a large increase of class 3 variants.

conclusionOverall detection rates (class 3, 4, and 5 variants) in a diagnostic setting are 44% and 61% for the arrhythmia and cardiomyopathy gene panel respectively, with only a small minority of likely pathogenic and pathogenic variants (8.8% and 19.8% respectively). Larger gene panels can increase the detection rate of likely pathogenic and pathogenic variants, but mainly increase the frequency of variants of unknown pathogenicity.

Indexed as

CardiogeneticDetection rateGene panelNext-generation sequencingVariants of unknown significance

Identifiers

PMID30847666
PMCPMC6533346
OpenAlexW2922211090

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.