Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30918357›Full record

ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2019

From diagnostic yield to clinical impact: a pilot study on the implementation of prenatal exome sequencing in routine care.

Maayke A de Koning, Monique C Haak, Phebe N Adama van Scheltema, Cacha M P C D Peeters-Scholte, Tamara T Koopmann, Esther A R Nibbeling, Emmelien Aten, Nicolette S den Hollander, Claudia A L Ruivenkamp, Mariëtte J V Hoffer and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

11 authors.

Maayke A de KoningDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Monique C HaakDepartment of Obstetrics and Fetal Medicine, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Phebe N Adama van ScheltemaDepartment of Obstetrics and Fetal Medicine, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Cacha M P C D Peeters-ScholteDepartment of Neurology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Tamara T KoopmannDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Esther A R NibbelingDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Emmelien AtenDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Nicolette S den HollanderDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Claudia A L RuivenkampDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Mariëtte J V HofferDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Gijs W E SantenDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands. santen@lumc.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeExome sequencing (ES) is an efficient tool to diagnose genetic disorders postnatally. Recent studies show that it may have a considerable diagnostic yield in fetuses with structural anomalies on ultrasound. We report on the clinical impact of the implementation of prenatal ES (pES) for ongoing pregnancies in routine care.

methodsWe retrospectively analyzed the impact of pES on pregnancy outcome and pre- or perinatal management in the first 22 patients counseled for pES because of one or more structural anomalies on fetal ultrasound.

resultsIn two cases, a diagnosis was made by chromosomal microarray analysis after ES counseling. The remaining 20 cases were divided in three groups: (1) pES to aid parental decision making (n = 12), (2) pES in the context of late pregnancy termination requests (n = 5), and (3) pES to guide pre- or perinatal management (n = 3). pES had a clinical impact in 75% (9/12), 40% (2/5), and 100% (3/3) respectively, showing an overall clinical impact of pES of 70% (14/20).

conclusionWe show that clinical implementation of pES is feasible and affects parental decision making or pre- and perinatal management supporting further implementation of ES in the prenatal setting.

Indexed as

ExomeExome SequencingFemaleFetusGenetic CounselingHumansPilot ProjectsPregnancyPrenatal DiagnosisRetrospective StudiesUltrasonography, Prenatalclinical impactexome sequencingfetal anomaliesparental counselingperinatal management

Identifiers

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.