Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31134132›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in genetics2019

Long-Read Sequencing Emerging in Medical Genetics.

Tuomo Mantere, Simone Kersten, Alexander Hoischen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 255 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
255citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

255 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Another common genetic ataxia in South Korea: Spinocerebellar ataxia 36.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

195 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

3 authors.

Tuomo MantereDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Simone KerstenDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Alexander HoischenDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The wide implementation of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies has revolutionized the field of medical genetics. However, the short read lengths of currently used sequencing approaches pose a limitation for the identification of structural variants, sequencing repetitive regions, phasing of alleles and distinguishing highly homologous genomic regions. These limitations may significantly contribute to the diagnostic gap in patients with genetic disorders who have undergone standard NGS, like whole exome or even genome sequencing. Now, the emerging long-read sequencing (LRS) technologies may offer improvements in the characterization of genetic variation and regions that are difficult to assess with the prevailing NGS approaches. LRS has so far mainly been used to investigate genetic disorders with previously known or strongly suspected disease loci. While these targeted approaches already show the potential of LRS, it remains to be seen whether LRS technologies can soon enable true whole genome sequencing routinely. Ultimately, this could allow the

Indexed as

long-read sequencingmedical geneticsnext-generation sequencingphasingpseudogenesstructural variationtandem repeat expansion

Identifiers

PMID31134132
PMCPMC6514244

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.