Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31250335›Full record

SynthesisJournal of clinical immunology2019

Diagnostic Yield of Next Generation Sequencing in Genetically Undiagnosed Patients with Primary Immunodeficiencies: a Systematic Review.

Hemmo A F Yska, Kim Elsink, Taco W Kuijpers, Geert W J Frederix, Mariëlle E van Gijn, Joris M van Montfrans

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of clinical immunology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Hemmo A F YskaDepartment of Pediatric Immunology and Infectious Diseases, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Kim ElsinkDepartment of Pediatric Immunology and Infectious Diseases, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Taco W KuijpersDepartment of Pediatric Hematology, Immunology and Infectious Diseases, Emma Children's Hospital, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Geert W J FrederixJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Mariëlle E van GijnDepartment of Medical Genetics, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Joris M van MontfransDepartment of Pediatric Immunology and Infectious Diseases, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. J.vanMontfrans@umcutrecht.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-6764-0211

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs the application of next generation sequencing (NGS) is moving to earlier stages in the diagnostic pipeline for primary immunodeficiencies (PIDs), re-evaluation of its effectiveness is required. The aim of this study is to systematically review the diagnostic yield of NGS in PIDs.

methodsPubMed and Embase databases were searched for relevant studies. Studies were eligible when describing the use of NGS in patients that had previously been diagnosed with PID on clinical and/or laboratory findings. Relevant data on study characteristics, technological performance and diagnostic yield were extracted.

resultsFourteen studies were eligible for data extraction. Six studies described patient populations from specific PID subcategories. The remaining studies included patients with unsorted PIDs. The studies were based on populations from Italy, Iran, Turkey, Thailand, the Netherlands, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, the UK, and the USA. Eight studies used an array-based targeted gene panel, four used WES in combination with a PID filter, and two used both techniques. The mean reported reading depth ranged from 98 to 1337 times. Five studies described the sensitivity of the applied techniques, ranging from 83 to 100%, whereas specificity ranged from 45 to 99.9%. The percentage of patients who were genetically diagnosed ranged from 15 to 79%. Several studies described clinical implications of the genetic findings. DISCUSSION: NGS has the ability to contribute significantly to the identification of molecular mechanisms in PID patients. The diagnostic yield highly depends on population and on the technical circumstances under which NGS is employed. Further research is needed to determine the exact diagnostic yield and clinical implications of NGS in patients with PID.

Indexed as

Genetic Association StudiesGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic TestingHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansPrimary Immunodeficiency DiseasesReproducibility of Resultsclinical performancediagnostic yieldnext generation sequencing (NGS)Primary immunodeficiency (PID)technological performancewhole exome sequencing (WES)whole genome sequencing (WGS)

Identifiers

PMID31250335
PMCPMC6697711

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.