ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2019
A toolkit for genetics providers in follow-up of patients with non-diagnostic exome sequencing.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT02450851 (Clinical and Genetic Evaluation of Patients With Undiagnosed Disorders Through the Undiagnosed Diseases Network), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
Clinical and Genetic Evaluation of Patients With Undiagnosed Disorders Through the Undiagnosed Diseases Network
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Automated reanalysis of genomic data for rare disease diagnostics at scale.Nature medicine · 2026Article
- Systematic reanalysis of genomic data by diagnostic laboratories: a scoping review of ethical, economic, legal and (psycho)social implications.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
- Participation in a national diagnostic research study: assessing the patient experience.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2023Article
- Application of exome sequencing for prenatal diagnosis of fetal structural anomalies: clinical experience and lessons learned from a cohort of 1618 fetuses.Genome medicine · 2022Article
- Lessons learnt from multifaceted diagnostic approaches to the first 150 families in Victoria's Undiagnosed Diseases Program.Journal of medical genetics · 2022Article
- Genome-wide sequencing and the clinical diagnosis of genetic disease: The CAUSES study.HGG advances · 2022Article
- A guide for the diagnosis of rare and undiagnosed disease: beyond the exome.Genome medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedCorrigendum.2019
Authors and funding
17 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
There are approximately 7,000 rare diseases affecting 25-30 million Americans, with 80% estimated to have a genetic basis. This presents a challenge for genetics practitioners to determine appropriate testing, make accurate diagnoses, and conduct up-to-date patient management. Exome sequencing (ES) is a comprehensive diagnostic approach, but only 25%-41% of the patients receive a molecular diagnosis. The remaining three-fifths to three-quarters of patients undergoing ES remain undiagnosed. The Stanford Center for Undiagnosed Diseases (CUD), a clinical site of the Undiagnosed Diseases Network, evaluates patients with undiagnosed and rare diseases using a combination of methods including ES. Frequently these patients have non-diagnostic ES results, but strategic follow-up techniques identify diagnoses in a subset. We present techniques used at the CUD that can be adopted by genetics providers in clinical follow-up of cases where ES is non-diagnostic. Solved case examples illustrate different types of non-diagnostic results and the additional techniques that led to a diagnosis. Frequent approaches include segregation analysis, data reanalysis, genome sequencing, additional variant identification, careful phenotype-disease correlation, confirmatory testing, and case matching. We also discuss prioritization of cases for additional analyses.
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.